Subscribe to our mailing list

 

Browsing the Society category...


Secrets.

Good secrets are possible: things like a tasty recipe, your unfinished album, or company staff payrolls. Privacy is lovely, but we swap it for convenience often.

But the cesspool of bad secrets farmed by the CIA and NSA are a toxic wasteland of bad secret information. Harbouring the waste is risky, in 2015 the NSA got hacked revealing the home address and personal details of 4 million employees! One good way to protect against such a breach would be to just delete the stuff and recycle the hard drives. Here is an astonishing one hour lecture by a hero named Kevin Shipp. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHbrOg092GA Turns out the CIA put in charge of Kennedys assassination was fired by Kennedy earlier. That shows how quick the shadow government took control over. All attempts to curtail so far get sunk in classified quagmires, odd suicides and hits.

Flag of the CIA



A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ

Roll Your Own Injunction!

Join the class action lawsuit, subscribe to this newsletter!
Download the print ready and source files:

Adobe Reader PDF File  (1.6 MB)
MS Word DOCX File  (3.6 MB)

As a random act of kindness, I quit my job at the time, and spent about 300 hours learning law and raising up this interim injunction to help in the case of a stranger, a man I had never met but who had been accused of growing 500 plants in Cambridge. I offered him accommodations at my house in Auckland (after his trip from Whangarei) and a lift to Hamilton to face the charges and travelled their with him that day.

This is a class action interim injunction against various agencies of crown this year. I did not actually serve the notice to the crown – well actually I did try but it was not accepted for filing by the registrar – but don’t worry, in 2017 I fully intend to serve this to the crown at the High Court in Auckland.

 

Without further ado… the action:  (The following is a full text paste from the official documents linked above)

 

 

 

 

In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton Registry

IN THE MATTER OF THE Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, The Health Act 1956, Bill of Rights Act 1990, UN DRIPs 2007, Magna Carta 1215, King v Penn 1670 (Tower of London); Orders of King Henry 1533 and Elizabeth 1563; A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ

Crown versus Xxxxl                         CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 (upcoming hearing 0X# November 2016)

Crown versus Xxxxxxxn       CRI-2014-0X4-029XX; CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365 (sentenced 29/10/2015, high court appeal 15/12/2015)

Crown versus Citizens         class action interim injunction on behalf of 46% of NZ citizens hereby initiated

BETWEEN                         Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl, of Whangarei, Engineer Applicant
Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Auckland, Professional Drummer, Website Consultant, Law Enthusiast Applicant
The Citizens of New Zealand Class Action Applicants

AND                                 Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

AND                                 Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health Respondent Section 3A Failure to adhere to the spirit of the Function of Ministry of The Health Act 1956

AND                                 David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Respondent breach of the spirit of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; breach of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007

AND                                 Una Jagose Solicitor General and/or Chris Finlayson Attorney General of New Zealand Respondent general and systemic failure in parliaments poor response to UNHRC5; Law Commission 20112; clarification of Mckenzie friend counsel T Xxxxxxxn; claim of right; jury nullifcation by direct address to jury to strike the prohibition with fresh bias and great prejudice.

Interlocutory Application without notice by the Applicant for interim injunction against the Respondents

To the Registrar In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton

And To the Respondants

This document notifies you that that the self represented applicants, Xxxxl, Xxxxxxxn, and the Citizens of New Zealand, hereby apply for the following interim and permanent injunctions, restraining the police and enforcing duty on the EACD:

  1. Removal of the plant Cannabis Sativa and extracts from the schedules of the misuse of drugs act, mainly because a plant genus can’t be a pharmaceutical drug.
  2. Addition of the drugs THC, THC-A, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, CBC and potentially about 80 other cannabinoids and volatile terpenes, plus the very approximate $7 to $80 million dollars (at ~$1 million ballpark figure) to test each at the ESR.
  3. Good faith waiver of our class action $4 billion damages claim in return for swift action by the MOJ including the immediate and comprehensive cessation of all arrests, prosecutions, incarcerations, probations, and digitisations involving the criminal histories of those accused of such victimless crimes of thought, who only wish to experience freedom in the privacy of their own home hurting nobody.

You must file in this registry of the court a statement of defence to the plaintiff’s claim (a copy of which is served [1] with this notice). You must do this within 25 working days after the date on which you have been served with this notice. If you do not, the plaintiff may at once proceed to judgment on the plaintiff’s claim, and judgment may be given in your absence.

If a trial of the proceeding is necessary, it will be held in this court at Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton at a time to be fixed by the court.

The grounds on which the each order is sought are as follows:

  1. The application for an interim injunction is made without notice because requiring the applicant to proceed on notice would cause undue delay or prejudice to the applicant, Rxxxx, who has been through a number of legal aide representatives whom have all resigned due to lack of faith in the concept of jury nullification, and a selfish unwillingness to risk reputation by being seen to take on cases unlikely to result in justice for the accused.
  2. The respondents have been advised of the importance of their statutory duties by ourselves on multiple occasions via attempted prosecutions by us such as on 23 June 2015, 21 February 2016, 16 August 2016, and today.
  3. The Crownlaw guidelines on the decision to prosecute not only the likelihood of successful prosecution, but on reasonable notions of public interest, the obsolescence of laws, and the interests of efficiency. My injunction shines a multi-dimensional light on the hyper-unjust prohibition of a sacramental flowering plant called Sativa who’s name in Greek means useful [2].
  4. There’s a saying: that laws can be passed or crushed by the ballot box, the jury box, or the ammo box.

I promise to the best of my knowledge this is made in accordance on Rules 3.52.5 3.52.28 of the District Court Rules 2009.

 

 

Signature:   _________________________________________

Rxxxx Xxxxl, Applicant in person

Date:                 /           /

 

 

Signature:   _________________________________________

Xxm Xxxxxxxn, Applicant in virtual, and authorised counsel to the Applicant like Rxxxx Xxxxl.

Date:                 29/12/16

If you file a statement of defence in the court, you must also provide the applicants with initial disclosure o           f documents in accordance with rule 8.4.

If you file a statement of defence in the court, you will be notified of the date and time of the first case management conference.

The purpose of the conference is to assist the parties in the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the proceeding, to make directions as to the conduct of the proceeding, and, where practicable, to make interlocutory orders. The parties will also be assisted to identify, define, and refine the issues in dispute.

You must prepare for and attend the first case management conference. You will be expected to have discussed with the applicant the matters set out in Schedule 5 of the High Court Rules. You or your solicitor must file a memorandum relating to the procedural matters set out in rule 7.3 of the High Court Rules.

 

 

Signature:   _________________________________________

Name:

Date:                 /           /

(Registrar/Deputy Registrar*)

*Select one.

Note: Please carefully read the memorandum attached to this notice.

In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton Registry

IN THE MATTER OF THE Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, The Health Act 1956, Bill of Rights Act 1990, UN DRIPs 2007, Magna Carta 1215, King v Penn 1670 (Tower of London); Orders of King Henry 1533 and Elizabeth 1563; A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ

Crown versus Xxxxl                         CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 (upcoming hearing 29 Sept 2016)

Crown versus Xxxxxxxn       CRI-2014-0X4-029XX; CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365 (sentenced 29 October 2015, high court appeal 15 December 2015)

Crown versus Citizens         class action interim injunction on behalf of 46% of NZ citizens hereby initiated

BETWEEN                         Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl, of Whangarei, Engineer Applicant
Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Auckland, Professional Drummer, Website Consultant, Law Enthusiast Applicant
The Citizens of New Zealand Class Action Applicants

AND                                 Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

AND                                 Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health Respondent Section 3A Failure to adhere to the spirit of the Function of Ministry of The Health Act 1956

AND                                 David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Respondent breach of the spirit of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; breach of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007

AND                                 Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand Respondent general and systemic failure in parliaments poor response to UNHRC 5; Law Commission 20112; clarification of Mckenzie friend counsel T Xxxxxxxn; claim of right; jury nullifcation by direct address to jury to strike the prohibition with fresh bias and great prejudice.

Memorandum of counsel to the Applicant 

Advice: Although you do not have to employ a solicitor for the purpose of this proceeding, it is recommended that you consult a solicitor about this matter immediately. However, a company or other corporation that wants to defend this proceeding or appear at any hearing must consult a solicitor immediately because—

(a) it can only carry on a proceeding in the court by a solicitor; and

(b) it cannot appear to conduct a proceeding except by counsel (unless there are exceptional circumstances).

Legal aid: If you cannot afford to meet the cost of the proceeding, you may be entitled to assistance under the Legal Services Act 2011.

The plaintiff has applied for legal aid for the purpose of this proceeding.

Statement of defence: If the last day for filing your statement of defence falls on a day on which the registry of the court is closed, you may file your statement of defence on the next day on which that registry is open.

In calculating the time for filing your statement of defence you must disregard the period that commences with 25 December and ends with 15 January.

If you file a statement of defence, you must serve a copy of it on the applicants who have given an address for service. This must be done within the same period of time you have for filing the statement of defence.

Counterclaim: If you have a counterclaim against the plaintiff, you must file a statement of that counterclaim in the registry of the court, and serve it on the applicant and on any other person against whom the same claim is made. This must be done within the same period of time you have for filing a statement of defence.

Witnesses: Summonses for the attendance of witnesses will be issued on application at the registry of the court.

Registry hours: The registry hours of the court are from 9 am to 5 pm, except on court holidays.

 

Addresses for service


Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl
Applicant

nager@legalise.org.nz

Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn
Applicant, and council to Xxxxl

International Drummer, Recording Artist, Web Designer, Law Reform Enthusiast
xxxxxxs@legalise.org.nz

The Cannabis Consuming People of New Zealand
Future Class Action Applicant

THE EACD
Dr Keith Bedford
Respondent

Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. The Committee is administered by a Secretariat comprised of Ministry of Health officials and advisers, as required.

EACD Secretariat
c/o Regulatory Practice and Analysis
Medsafe
Ministry of Health
PO Box 2013
Wellington
eacd@moh.govt.nz
keith.bedford@esr.cri.nz

THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH
Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health
Respondent

Ministry of Health
PO Box 5013
Wellington 6140
chai_chuah@moh.govt.nz
SSC-Media@SSC.govt.nz
psychoactives@moh.govt.nz

THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission

Respondant

Level 7, The AIG Building, 41 Shortland Street, Auckland
PO Box 6751, Wellesley Street, Auckland 1141
infoline@hrc.co.nz
roberth@hrc.co.nz

Una Jagose Solicitor General and Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand
Respondant

Level 3
Justice Centre
19 Aitken Street
Wellington, 6011
New Zealand
c.finlayson@parliament.govt.nz
oia@crownlaw.govt.nz

 


Statement of claim

 

Filed by                                    Rxxxx Xxxxl, the applicant in person.
And; for many other persons:        The Citizens of New Zealand and Rxxxx Xxxxl.

The plaintiff claims:                 The Right to an injunction and Judicial Review

UNDER THE                             Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE FAILURE OF THE STATUTORY DUTIES OF THE EACD AND INTERIM ORDER FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING RECLASSIFICATION OF CANNABIS

IN THE MATTER                        of breach of natural justice, breach of democracy.

AND                                         of removing, in its capacity of administration of the act, and due to overwelming evidence in support of the medicinal use of Cannabis Sativa and it’s variant straings, all mention of Cannabis plant and extracts in any schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, an act which is solely administered by the Ministry of Health.

AND                                         of breach of Section 3A of The Health Act 1956 in regards to the Function of Ministry in relation to public health; by failure to carry out it’s core founding function of improving, promoting, and protecting public health in relation to Cannabis.

AND                                         of contravention of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 in relation to Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Namely that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

AND                                         of contravention of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007; expressly that Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services.

AND IN THE MATTER                of the resulting financial, physiological and psychological damages arising from punishments out of all proportion to the “crimes” commited, and resulting from the lack of access to appropriate herbal medicine

 

Causes of action:

 

  • Failure to reclassify Cannabis in a timely fashion, post 2000 ammendments
  • Failure to consider the advancement of science in a timely fashion
  • Failure to heed advice of expert bodies in regards unpopular, obsolete law
  • Observed abuse of discretionary power by Hamilton police

 

Affidavit of Xxm Xxxxxxxn in support of application for injunction to remove the plant Cannabis and herbal extracts from schedules of the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1975

 

I, Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Ponsonby, Auckland, 39 years of age (13/0X/19XX) hereby wish to make this formal application for an emergency interlocutory with a crown representative, a member of the EACD, the Auckland commissioner for Human Rights, in Auckland, before Thursday 29 September 2016, that being the day of an upcoming prosecution of a wholly innocent man of thought crime in the Hamilton district court:

Crown v Xxxxl CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 Thursday 29 September 2016;

15019008168 Cultivates (lead charges for 500 plants in Cambridge found 1 October 2015)

All charges: 15019008169 / 15019008170 / 15019008171 / 15019008172 Possess Equipment to Cultivate / 15019008767 / 15019008768 / 15019008769 / 15019008770 / 15019008772

And my own personal application for Habeas Corpus to overturn or hide my conviction and sentence on 29 October 2015, and my requeset to be able to work as a musician which were dismissed at the High Court on 15 December 2015.

Crown v Xxxxxxxn CRI-2014-0X4-029XX and CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365

And a class action lawsuit I’m preparing against the government on behalf of the 400,000 people in New Zealand whom have tried the prohibited cannabis once in their lives, seeking potential damages of $4 billion but including a waiver settlement in return for our remedy.

I hereby seek an urgent interlocutory order or a direction relating to a matter of procedure; subject to the Supreme Court Act 2003 [3].

The matter of procedure relates to at least eight areas:

  1. ambiguity in the text of the law;
  2. the inheritance of laws from England;
  3. the interpretation of the meaning and purpose of a jury;
  4. the accused ability to address the jury directly or via Mckenzie friend;
  5. inaccuracies in the text of laws;
  6. constitutional issues, the rights of the indigenous, the public interest etc:
  7. reduction in needlerss torture and punishment
  8. reduction in costs to the government
  • I hereby state claim that my request to review cannabis sativa is valid and in the public interest, and should proceed to a hearing. A judicial review is referred to as supervisory jurisdiction – reflecting the role of the courts to supervise the exercise of power by those who hold it to ensure that it has been lawfully exercised. The Judicature Amendment Act 1972 [4] saught to simplify the old matters of prerogative writs [5]; The practical position is that any exercises of power are reviewable by the courts that in substance have important public consequences. At its most basic level, judicial review is available when an Act of Parliament creates a discretionary power for public officials to exercise – be they Ministers, Chief Executives of Government Ministries, or Ministry employees – and somebody adversely affected by the exercise of that power challenges the decision on the basis that the person exercising it has not acted consistently with the power given by the Act, for example, by misinterpreting the provision giving it. Seen in this way, judicial review essentially involves the courts ensuring that the law is being followed when power is exercised in a manner that affects people. There are many ty­pes of decision that can be challenged by way of judicial review, and various bodies exercising “public” powers or functions that can have their decisions reviewed by the court, but focusing on this core aspect of judicial review provides the clearest insight into the essence of it.
  • I involve the Minister, for his part as it is the ministry of Health that oversees this act, and his refusal to reclassify cannabis out of the misuse of drugs act entirely due to cannabis sativa and it’s extracts being the genus of a a plant species and not a pharmaceutical drug compound; and that he failed in his statutory duty to do so as stated binding the crown in the spirit and good intention of the opening of the Health Act 1956 in it’s promise to provide positive health outcomes for kiwis.
  • I involve the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission to respond to my claim of breach of the spirit of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; and of breach of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007; and of the simple right to live in a plant based society.
  • I involve the Solicitor General of New Zealand to respondent to the claim of failure of our government in it’s responsibility and/or statutory duty to respond to the UNHRC 5th periodic report; and failure to provide justice by allowing the courts to bar the accused from presenting their defence of jury nullifcation by addressing the jury directly to strike down the prohibition law.
  • To answer questions relating to the inheritance of our laws from England post 1840, a review of guidance provided by the judiciary as to the true purpose and history of juries, and their initial purpose as the citizens defenders from abusive powers and whether the purpose of a jury in England is the same as in New Zealand.
  • Recent scientific evidence has come to light that shows the plant and concentrated extracts of Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis Indica, and Cannabis Ruderalis, listed in schedules of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 do in fact have therapeutic value as medicines; and should therefore be removed from the act, prior to the addition of the individual compounds in order to provide time to study them.
  • The fact that cannabis is a plant and not a drug appears to have created a deadlock at the EACD [6], indication the assistance of a judicial review could be due.

During the April 2016 meeting of the following minutes are noted, shown below in italics, where members note that only “one molecule of a controlled substance to be present in preparation” whereas cannabis is not a molecule.

[redacted] advised that currently, if a practitioner wishes to prescribe a cannabinoid or products that contain cannabinoids, they have to make an application to the Minister. Currently there are no products containing only CBD that are approved medicines both domestically and internationally. There are however, a number of non-pharmaceutical products available. It was noted that there was a difference of opinion between ESR and MoH regarding whether or not CBD should be considered a controlled drug or not. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia have recently down-scheduled CBD to a prescription only medicine with less than two percent of other cannabinoids as most CBD extracts contain small amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) due to the difficulty and associated cost to separate the two substances. The Misuse of Drugs Act (MoDA) only requires one molecule of a controlled substance to be present in a preparation for it to be captured as a controlled drug.

There is an entry in the Medicines Regulations for CBD as a prescription medicine, however, if it is also considered a controlled drug, then MoDA acts as the dominant piece of legislation.

  • In relation to the plant Cannabis the contravention of the following UN Declaration [7]:“Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services. “ – The United Nations
  • Right honorable Peter Dunne, member of parliament, recently gave his approval [8] for the use of Cannabis Sativa whole plant extracts to be used for therapeutic use in the treatment of a severely epileptic patient in Wellington. This fact alone is entirely sufficient evidence for the immediate removal of cannabis sativa from the act.

Dunne approves one-off use of ‘Elixinol’ on compassionate grounds; a cannabidiol (CBD) product from the United States to be administered by clinicians treating Wellington patient Alex Renton:

“I have also considered the absence of any other treatment options, the low risk of significant adverse effects, and the conclusion reached by the hospital ethics committee from an individual patient perspective.” – Peter Dunne

  • Cannabis Sativa has been shown to reduce incidence of Glaucoma[9]
  • Cannabis Sativa has been shown to be effective in the treatment of multiple sclerosis[10].
  • Cannabis Sativa has been shown to be effective in the inhibition of many cancers[11]:, such as lung, brain, bladder[12].
  • The Sativex datasheet says it’s product it non-toxic to the liver[13].
  • Studies of dogs and monkeys found 15,000 joints in 15 minutes was a fatal dose for those unfortunate animals, but the study is likely to have been incorrect science. The numbers yielded by the bunk study by my calculations an extrapolated LD50 (lethal dose in 50% of people) of 92 grams of pure THC for a person of 72 kgs, taken inside 15 minutes. Judge Young of the US DOJ said in Docket No.86-22 on September 6, 1988 comments about the LD50 of cannabis[14].
  • The endocannabinoid system is the most widely spread G type receptors in the modern brain, however it does not affect the brainstem like alcohol does, and therefore can not be the cause of a fatal overdose. THC must therefore be non-toxic.
  • The bodies own Endocannabinoid system is named after cannabis and it is a diverse group of neuromodulatory lipids – such as Anandamide – and their receptors in the brain that are involved in a variety of physiological processes including appetite, pain-sensation, mood, and memory; it mediates the psychoactive effects of cannabis and, broadly speaking, includes: The endogenous arachidonate-based lipids, anandamide (N-arachidonoylethanolamide, AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG); these are known as “endocannabinoids” and are physiological ligands (electron pair donors) for the cannabinoid receptors[15]; The enzymes that synthesize and degrade the endocannabinoids, such as fatty acid amide hydrolase or monoacylglycerol lipase; The cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, are two G protein-coupled receptors that are located in the central and peripheral nervous systems; The endocannabinoid system has been studied using genetic and pharmacological methods. These studies have revealed that cannabinoids act as neuromodulators for a variety of physiological processes, including motor learning, synaptic plasticity, appetite, and pain sensation.
  • For the purposes of conducting additional studies in preparation for application for legal sale via the Psychoactive Substances 2013 act[16], I respectfully request that the Court considers my application for removal of Cannabis and it’s extracts from all schedules of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

 

Interlocutory Questions for the EACD

  • For his committee’s part and as a local member the EACD’s effective refusal to reclassify cannabis out of the misuse of drugs act entirely due to cannabis sativa and it’s extracts being the genus of a a plant species and not a pharmaceutical chemical drug compound; and that he has failed in his statutory and ethical or moral duty to do so under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975; 2000 Ammendments which created the committe to oversee what would become “Legal Highs”.
  • In the context of the Misuse of drugs act, what exactly is a drug?
  • Is Viagra the worlds only recreational prescription drug? What others exist?
  • It is not hearsay to say:A pharmaceutical drug is an element or known compound that affects the mind and/or body in a clinically recognised and scientifically repeatable manner. The compound can be purified and studied.
  • Scientifically formulated drugs are virtually never plants, they are pure extracts.
  • Cannabis sativa is the genus of a plant. It is not a drug. It’s inclusion in the schedules is unique. No other banned or prohibited plants exist; certain noxious weeds can not be sold at garden stores, but it is not prohibited to possess or cultivate them.
  • I request an interim injunction requesting the EACD to consider removing plant genus cannabis and it’s extracts by amendment, and suggest the same or intended effect could be discovered by studying the following compounds:

THC – Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, THCA – Tetrahydrocannabinolic Acid, THCV – Tetrahydrocannabivarin, CBD – Cannabidiol, CBN – Cannabinol, CBG – Cannabigerol, CBC – Cannabichromene, Terpenes – diverse group of organic HydroCarbons (C5H8).

 

Supreme Court Judicial Review Interlocutory

 

  • The United Nations has twice put New Zealand on notice for poor performance in regards human rights, re-iterating the initial warning from the 4th report in the 5th periodic report[17]
  • Since our law is based on English law prior to 1840, is New Zealand subject to the same UK court precedents prior to 1840?
  • Under the Crimes Act 1961, would it be considered wilful perversion of justice to distribute this[18] informational flyer about Jury Nullification to all houses in Hamilton?
  • Do the citizens of New Zealand have the right to freedom of thought?
  • According to the Bill of Rights we are supposed to have freedom of religion, yet this does not seem to stretch to freedom of culture. Why is that?
  • Since we currently have the legal right to perform acts to alter our minds such as meditation/skydiving/spinning to dizziness/hyperventilating; and since this right to alter our minds extends to the cultural practices of alcohol, caffeine and recreational drug viagra; then shouldn’t this right also extend to cultural practices of altering our minds using other less harmful chemicals instead, even if these cultural practices seem alien so long as they harm no other person?
  • In some countries you could be punished just to think of gay sex.

Yet thought crimes are indefensible.

In NZ, recently bills have been proposed to reverse the convictions of homosexual men accused of performing sodomy or anal sex – this non-crime is essentially similar to drug non-crime in that it is a non-crime of thought as well as prosecutor-led court action that is victimless, lacks a witness and is also complainant-free.[19]

  • Does the state recognise or deny our right to the freedom to develop our own unique human personality, our cultural behaviors, lifestyles, religions, traits and customs, so long as it does not harm ourselves physically or mentally, nor anyone else or nor anyone or other nation states property in any measureable way that’s reasonable?
  • Recently the Mexican supreme court ruled in favour of the right to develop a personality and stuck down the ban on the cannabis plant for contravening this, so I felt this was relevant to my interlocutory application at the Supreme Court.
  • What justification exists or why should New Zealand citizens have a right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers and is this right enshrined in any legislation currently?
  • Does the court agree that one good purpose of a jury is to protect citizens from overzealous governments and courts by forming a safety valve or sorts for aberrant or obsolete laws?
  • Our nation and many others are based on the universal and historic text of the Magna Carta of 1215 AD which establishes this and we intend to mount a defence basd primarily on the idea a jury can protect citizens from bad laws[20].
  • Should the criminal defence be allowed to instruct juries of their civic responsibility to deliver justice to their fellow citizens perhaps over and above the duty to law and to the crown? If not, why not? Does this conflict with the Magna Carta?
  • Our defence depends on our ability to address the jury; to educate on our countries legal history and laws and to instruct the jury in this case to strike out the Misuse of Drugs Act, and to declare the fruits of the search warrant null and void and that any obstruction to our right to present our natural defence is a direct afront to our understanding of the system and counter to the entire reason for having jury trials!

The cases are:

  1. a) The King v William Penn and Mead. 1670 Tower of London, United Kingdom[21];
  2. b) The Crown v Murnane 2008; Waihopai, New Zealand[22].

In both cases the jury acquitted the accused of “thought crimes” despite considerable evidence, due to the fact that a thought crime is not defendable.

  • The right to present a defence as requested by the barons in Magna Carta by The King of England was given under duress of his life and the capture of London castle. If the citizens right to mount a defence to the jury is threatened this must necessarily end in violent conflict surely?
  • Does the jury have the option to find any defendant not guilty even if doing so may require accepting the evidence of the crime as factually committed by the accused and yet also simultaneously determine the law itself to be invalid, irrelevant, obsolete, or not in the public interest in this particular case?
  • In The King v William Penn, was a matter of a victimless crime and obsolete law. Penn was able to admit the truth of the statements of fact but still plead not guilty claiming the law to be incorrect, and by addressing the jury for compassion in the shadow of tyranny.
  • Is it sensible or responsible for crown prosecution to proceed with Crown v Xxxxl CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 if the defendant is indicating support from myself to mount exactly such a defence of jury nullification and a simultaneous claim of right under the Crimes Act 1961 or should parliament or the judiciary intervene to clarify its position on the matter?
  • Considering the mountain of evidence against my Mckenzie friend Xxxxl, and guilty admission in statements to police, an entire jury trial seems an expensive waste of tax payers money.
  • The fact that an accused person acted without “claim of right” is an element of this offence with must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It enables a defendant to advance at their trial that they genuinely believe that what they were doing was lawful, regardless of the reasonableness of that belief.
  • In summing up the Waihopai Three case to jurors, Judge Stephen Harrop said if the Waihopai Three believed they were acting lawfully, even if they were mistaken in that belief, they must be acquitted.

The right of defence was that they acted urgently to save another life.

  • Considering the recommenations in The Law Commission Report 2011[23] generated over 3,800 submissions, and ultimately recommended repeal of the act in Chapter 14 R1, why has he not called for the repeal of the act?

 

Questions for Humans Rights Commissioner

  • For his part by denying my Mckenzie friend Xxm Xxxxxxxn his legitamate claim to an indigeonous Customary right of use of traditional plants, and to clarify the difference between freedom of religion and freedom of culture, and a review of his commissions lack of action in regards the UNHRC 5th periodic report.
  • ###
  • My initial human rights complaint was declined by from Robert Hallowell, legal counsil for the HRC on the basis I am not an indigeonous person[24].
  • I have never in my life harmed anyone or property, nor have I ever been charged nor convicted of any crime involving any person or property.
  • I was the victim of police harassment and multiple unwarranted searches of my home during 2015, including an entire search of my house and locked bedroom when I was not home due to “the smell of cannabis” being smoked by one of my flatmates in our free standing villa. The police did not knock and came around the back of the house. By September I had begun to record the date/times of the visits and counted 6.
  • Regarding being actively denied the ability to work by probation during my 6.2 month sentence of community detention on Cannabis supply charges; on three separate occasions I presented in written offers of work from three different employers that I could willfully accept (Appendix A), but each time and finally in escalation from my probation manager up to a managerial level written refusal from the department involving the superstition of likely future offending on the dates, based on false propositions I’d likely offend again during the specific hours of my employment, which were at night time.
  • Community detention is a home based rehabiliative custodial sentence given to offenders deemed at low risk to society, and allows an offender to work during the sentence.
  • As such this is a contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993 part 2 Unlawful discrimination, which relate to discrimination in employment matters: It shall be unlawful for any person concerned with procuring employment for other persons or procuring employees for any employer to treat any person seeking employment differently from other persons in the same or substantially similar circumstances by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, in my case on my religious belief, ethical belief, my race or aparent lack thereof, my abnormally high psychological function.
  • I also believe the department may have taken some of my political opinions to heart in preventing my access to employment during this time. My probation officer suggested that I could take up other employment options at a lower pay rate than the offers I had on the the table. As such where an applicant or employee is qualified for work of any description – as I was – it shall be unlawful for such people to offer or afford the applicant or employee less favourable terms of employment, or conditions of work.
  • Contravention of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 in relation to Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Namely that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.
  • The Department of Corrections was formed in 1995 with the intention of improving public safety and assisting in the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. Part of my rehabilitation involves fair and equal rights of access to employment.

 

My Customary Rights Claim

  • I claim that my Customary rights are infringed, as promised by article 24, clause 1 of the United Nations Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007; expressly that Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services.
  • Establishment of own Customary rights to plant based medicine and ceremonies is presented.
  • My fathers tribe (collectively, the Xxxxxxxns, the Rixxxonxs, the Huxxxxouses) come from the United Kingdom and I claim Customary use of the plant Cannabis Sativa for use as a hemp fibre, such as that enjoyed by my forefathers did before me in the UK. I am a direct descendant by blood of Hxxxx Axxxxx Xxxxxxxn who arrived in 1852, and he is my great great great grandfather by father-son relationship. My evidence will show that the production of hemp (cannabis Sativa) was one of the prime motivators for the British colonisation of Australasia at the end of the 18th century. Britain’s economy and security was almost entirely dependent on the traditional hemp plant, Cannabis sativa. I wish to be allowed to pursue my forefathers reasons for coming to this fine land, and to be allowed my traditional methods of fibre production for linen, rope, sheets and sails and so forth.
  • My mothers tribe (the Bxxxxxs) come from Austria in 1939 seeking refuge from persecution from Hitler, and belongs to the Jewish faith. In the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) you can find the text that reads: “Also, one will beautify [Shabbat candle lighting] when the wick is made from cotton, flax or cannabis…”. It is clear to me that using cannabis for clothing and accessories was very common to my ancestors. It was used for making tallitot and tzitzit, as well as “schach” (Sukkot roof coverings), and cannabis fits into the category of kitnyos on Passover, meaning that Ashkenazi Jews were prohibited from using it on the holiday. One thus might assume that it was also consumed, perhaps as food, during the remainder of the year.
  • While none of these traditional purposes even include psychotropic usage, however, I do not see this as an issue, and psychotropic use can be argued as granted in our universal right to freedom of thought and religion.
  • Some members of our community feel it a matter of life and death, and in fact, and work tirelessly day and night to resolve the situation. For example, in the sad case of one late Stephen Macintyre, a generous man who was said to have supplied terminal cancer patients with below-cost medical cannabis, was needlessly persecuted by the police after a breach of his privacy, and by the same multiple warrantless searches on his home to mine, and he decided the system was in fact too strong to fight alone, to hang himself with a rope.
  • The Bill of Rights Act was cripled when passed into law as a regular statute, and therefore our judiary seem bewilderingly, and unsettlingly forced into a quite strict robotic form of the legal interpretations of the act in regards cannabis. It would appear the only body capable of full exoneration is a jury of my peers.
  • Should parliament be instructed by the supreme court to act positively and decisively on the advice of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in it’s 4th and 5th periodic reports?
  • These are about right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence relating to possession with intent to supply. The UNHRC says that the burden of proof must fall with the prosecution, not with to the defence to prove innocence, so can we please have a direction from the supreme court on the matter?
  • Do we have no other option but to forever incarcerate recidivist cannabis growers, dealers and users who refuse to cease growing, selling, and using the plant?
  • Most recidivist criminals receive extremely long preventative detention sentences for good reason.
  • Along with the United Kingdom and Israel, New Zealand is alone in not having a written, codified constitution, but at any rate laws are actually an extremely weak guarantee of outcome. We outlaw murder, theft, they still happen. This is not to say those behaviors are not bad; and it is not to say we don’t want to have any rules or laws; but that there are better guarantees of outcomes should we choose to look at the evidence.
  • The evidence shows that ethics, morality, and a humanity are a better guarantee of desirable outcomes for a country than strict laws to enshrine a victimless crime law initially designed to target political opponents of Richard Nixon.
  • We intend to widely distribute the Jury Biasing Flyer in order to bias the jury towards nullification of this violent prohibition that has gone for long enough.
  • Should the jury and judiciary consider complex variables such as compassion, ethics, morality, and humanity or rather be instructed to instead behave more reliably like a computer, emotionless, robotic, but yet 100% fair and even entities?
  • I would like the double positive scenario (both fair and humane) affirmed by a supreme court judge, to ensure the possibility of a fair trial for my friend and myself in future. The negative-positive combination (not human but only fair) appears to be the de facto method in NZ, hence the interlocution in this case.
  • Should the judiciary and juries be instructed to overturn cases based on humanity?

 

In the District Court of New Zealand, Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton Registry

IN THE MATTER OF THE Judicature Act 1908, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, The Health Act 1956, Bill of Rights Act 1990, UN DRIPs 2007, Magna Carta 1215, King v Penn 1670 (Tower of London); Orders of King Henry 1533 and Elizabeth 1563; A Class Action Application For Interim Orders For A Stay Of Proceedings Pending Reclassification Of Cannabis Via Judicial Review; And Of The Failure Of The Statutory Duties Of The EACD, MOH, HRC And Office of the Queens Council to the Parliament of NZ

Crown versus Xxxxl                         CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 (upcoming hearing 29 Sept 2016)

Crown versus Xxxxxxxn       CRI-2014-0X4-029XX; CRI-2015-0X4-0085XX; and CRI-2015-404-00X365 (sentenced 29 October 2015, high court appeal 15 December 2015)

Crown versus Citizens         class action interim injunction on behalf of 46% of NZ citizens hereby initiated

BETWEEN                         Rxxxx Xxxxxt Xxxxl, of Whangarei, Engineer Applicant
Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn, of Auckland, Professional Drummer, Website Consultant, Law Enthusiast Applicant
The Citizens of New Zealand Class Action Applicants

AND                                 Dr Keith Bedford, of Auckland, Toxicology, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs Respondent failure of statutory duty in Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

AND                                 Dr Chai Chuah, of Auckland, Director General Ministry of Health Respondent Section 3A Failure to adhere to the spirit of the Function of Ministry of The Health Act 1956

AND                                 David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Respondent breach of the spirit of part 2 section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; breach of article 24, clause 1 of the UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigeonous Peoples 2007

AND                                 Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand Respondent general and systemic failure in parliaments poor response to UNHRC 5; Law Commission 20112; clarification of Mckenzie friend counsel T Xxxxxxxn; claim of right; jury nullifcation by direct address to jury to strike the prohibition with fresh bias and great prejudice.

Undertaking by the Applicant as to damages

 

To: The Registrar of the District Court

I, Rxxxx Xxxxl, the applicant in this proceeding, undertake that if, by reason of the granting of the order for injunction sought by the applicant, the respondants sustain any damages that in the opinion of the court the applicant ought to pay, the applicant requests, in accordance with wording of the law – to let the costs lie where they fall.

  • The costs should lie where they fall because this document if brought as a class action would likely bring over $4 billion in damages based on $400 million/year cost to government of prohibition based on the Sue Grey OIA[25].
  • Just one single year of the prohibition running in this counrty would create an easy net boost to the government coffers caused by the success of this action and is I propose likely a suitable bond against failure on my part in bringing it; in order to as is my right in the law to let the costs “lay as they fall” in the words of the law itself.

On the above basis the plaintiff seeks the following remedy:

  • Judicial Review to force removal – or replacement by the correct chemical compound names of the active ingrediants – of the plant genus Cannabis Sativa and it’s herbal extracts from schedules of the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1975.
  • Government funded study of the compounds in cannabis, including but not limited to the following compounds:

THC, THC-A, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, CBC and potentially about 80 other chemicals in the class of compounds known as cannabinoids and terpynes, found in abundance in the cannabis plant. Cannabinoids are responsible for many of the effects of cannabis consumption and have important therapeutic benefits.

  • Confirmation by judicial review that the defence can address the jury and be allowed the fullest chance to present a defence of jury nullification, by informing them of the history of juries in England, especially with reference to the Magna Cart 1215 and case of William Penn 1670.
  • We request that the court exercise it’s ability under the Judicature Act 1908 and issue an interim order declaring that the Crown ought not to institute or continue with any proceedings, civil or criminal, in connection with cannabis.
  • I may absolve my claim of damages arising from the inappropraite classification of cannabis, and the failure of the EACD to remove the whole plant, equal to the resultant financial, physiological and psychological hardships I’ve endured arising from these bizarre punishments that seem out of all proportion to relative seriousness of the “crimes” alleged; and resulting from the lack of access to appropriate herbal medicine; if the court or body involve would consider my claim and offer to extinguish all past convictions, drop all current cases and prosecutions, release all current prisoners, and begin to collect taxes on it.

 

Signature:                                                          (sign here)

 

 

  • In 1533 King Henry VIII decreed that all landholders set aside one-quarter acre for the cultivation of hemp for every sixty acres of land that they tilled, in order to provide the necessary fibre required by the nation. This was to satisfy the increased demand for rope and sailcloth for King Henry’s VIII new navy. In 1563 Queen Elizabeth I backed this up with a £5 fine. I put it that the United States led war on drugs was incorrectly and illegally applied in breach of these orders by the Royalty and due for immediate repeal.
  • In Magna Carta we see

 

Laws are weak guarantees of outcomes.

We outlaw murder, theft, but they still happen.

This is not to say those crimes are OK, and this is not to say that all laws are bad. But sometimes there are better alternatives.

The law is no substitute for consciousness. The legality of a thing is no guarantee of the morality of it.

Sometimes a humane approach is the right approach; we should be allowed to consider when they are appropriate, and be allowed to request the jury to consider it, not prevented from depositing this historic, scientific, and cultural evidence.

And if ethics and humanity can by fact provide greater guarantee of desired outcomes and protection of individual human rights than legislation is – then it’s that moment when the actual laws and policies themselves are left forlorn and obsolete, and they become a tool of abuse of the state, and a way to discriminate and segreate communities with violnce and promotes a culture of gang warfare.

Yours sincerely, Xxxxxs and Rxxxx.

Thursday, 29 September 2016 at the District Court of Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton

 

PS Thank you and thanks in advance for your eagerly awaited reply! Some further information about the drugs found in the plant cannabis sativa are in my appendix. As you can see I have actually purposefully held back on the questions for my interlocution, as their is a lot more material I have not covered in Appendix B.

 

Xxm Xxxxxxxn – Director

The Xxxxxsachi Corporation

M: 021 xxxxx22 | Web:

Subscribe to Auckland Music Update

Bands: Xxxxxsachi.tv | tripxxxxxxx.com

 

 

 

 

Date:                 /           /

 

Name:             Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn

 

This document is filed by the plaintiff in person. The address for service of the plaintiff in this proceeding is

Suite 6734

PO Box 83000

Johnsonville

Wellington 6440

New Zealand

xxxxxs@legalise.org.nz

 

 

 


Appendix A – Plaintiff’s list of documents relied on

 

Next event date:                         Thursday 29 Sept 2016 Hamilton District Court
Crown versus Xxxxl      CRI-2015-0X9-00XX19 v

Filed by Xxm Xxxxxxxn, the plaintiff in person.

And; for many other persons: The Citizens of New Zealand and Rxxxx Xxxxl.

 

To the Registrar of the High Court at Whangarei / Auckland / Hamilton

and

To Dr Keith Bedford, The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, Dr Chai Chuah, Director General Ministry of Health, Chris Finlayson Solicitor General of New Zealand, David Rutherford, Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission

Lists of the documents relied on by the plaintiff

[1]   Supreme Court Act 2003.pdf
[2]   Judicature Amendment Act 1972.pdf
[3]   eacd-meeting-minutes-27apr2016.docx
[4]   UN Declaration Righs Indigenous Peoples DRIPS_en.pdf
[5]   OIA 2015150639-0001 Alex Renton Peter Dunne 2407.pdf
[6]   Cannabinoids and Glaucoma BJO 08800708.pdf
[7]   Bove – Use of Marijuana for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis.pdf
[8]   “Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents”

Guillermo Velasco, Cristina Sánchez & Manuel Guzmán; Nature Reviews Cancer 12, 436-444 (June 2012) | doi:10.1038/nrc3247UN Universal Human Rights 1939.pdf

[9]   Day-Cancer-Why-We’re-Still-Dying-to-Know-the-Truth-(2000).pdf
[10]          Sativex Datasheet: Potential Therapeutic Drug Interactions
[11]          LD50 cannabis Exhibit_G.pdf
[12]          “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”

Grotenhermen, Franjo (23 Jul 2012). “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 109 (PMC3442177): 495–501. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0495. PMC 3442177. PMID 23008748. Franjo Grotenhermen, Nova-Institut, Goldenbergstrasse 2, 50354 Huerth, Germany. franjo.grotenhermen@nova-institut.de

[13]          Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.pdf
[14]          UN 5th Periodic CCPR-C-NZL-CO-5.pdf
[15]          Jury Biasing Flyer.pdf
[16]          Homosexual law reform bill petittion

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81616306/Thirty-years-on-from-NZs-tumultuous-gay-law-reform-bill

[17]          Magna Carta 1215 AD.pdf
[18]          William-Penn-and-Nullification.pdf
[19]          Waihopai Leason-2013-NZCA-509.pdf
[20]          NZHRC Decline Customary Rights February 2016
[21]          Customary Rights Claim of Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn
[22]          Crownlaw-prosecution-guidelines.pdf
[23]          Synod_Prison_Task_Group_Incarceration_in_NZ 2010.pdfMisuse of Drugs Act 1975.pdf
[24]          Misuse of Drugs Medicinal Cannabis Amendment Bill.pdf
[25]          The Emperor Wears No Clothes – Jack Herer 25.pdf
[26]          Sativex Application Approval Form.doc
[27]          Law Commission Review 2011.pdf
[28]          Inquiry-cannabis-legal-status-DBSCH-SCR-2531-2399.pdf Forty-seventh Parliament (Steve Chadwick, Chairperson) August 2003:
a.     Page 49-50 EACD give a high priority to its reconsideration of the classification of cannabis.
b.     Recommendation 22 Page 57 shows support for clinically tested cannabis products for medicinal purposes
[29]          Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells. Guillermo Velasco, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. 2009.
[30]          Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells. Salazar et al. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2009; DOI: 10.1172/JCI37948.
[31]          THC Shrinks Tumours. Munsen A.E et al. J Nat Cancer Inst, Vol 55, No. 3, Sept 1975.
[32]          Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis & Cannabinoids 2009

 

A 2009 review of nearly 200 scientific trials assessing the therapeutic utility of cannabinoids for the treatment of nineteen clinical indications: Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, dystonia, fibromyalgia, gastrointestinal disorders, gliomas, hepatitis C, HIV, hypertension, incontinence, MRSA, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, sleep apnoea, and Tourette’s syndrome.

 

Appendix B – Excerpts of evidence

 

[1]   Supreme Court Act 2003.pdf

 

interlocutory application—

  • (a)  means an application in a proceeding or intended proceeding for—
    • (i)  an order or a direction relating to a matter of 
procedure; or
    • (ii)  in the case of a civil proceeding, for some relief 
ancillary to the relief claimed in the pleading; and
  • (b)  includes an application for a new trial; and
  • (c)  includes an application to review a decision made on an interlocutory application

 

[2]   Judicature Amendment Act 1972.pdf

 

4 Application for review

On an application which may be called an application for re­ view, the High Court may, notwithstanding any right of appeal possessed by the applicant in relation to the subject matter of the application, by order grant, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise, or proposed or purported exercise by any per­ son of a statutory power, any relief that the applicant would be entitled to, in any one or more of the proceedings for a writ or order of or in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari or for a declaration or injunction, against that person in any such proceedings.

[3]   eacd-meeting-minutes-27apr2016.docx

 

Excerpts from point 5: Cannabidiol (CBD)

[redacted] (Senior Policy Analyst, MoH) and [redacted] (Principal Advisor, Medicines control) attended the meeting at 10.21am.

Dr Stewart Jessamine chaired the discussion as Assoc. Prof. Cynthia Darlington had declared a conflict of interest due to her involvement in preclinical research into cannabinoid pharmacology. The Committee had no issues with Assoc. Prof. Cynthia Darlington being present for the discussion given her expertise in the area but she would be excluded from the decision making process due to the outcome potentially impacting the regulatory environment for research.

[redacted] gave a brief contextual overview within the Ministry of Health (MoH). [redacted] has been involved in therapeutic uses of controlled drugs for the last few years, with her main area of interest recently being around medicinal cannabis. The MoH policy unit are of the understanding that Minister Dunne is comfortable around the current legal framework regarding access and use of controlled drugs, but he is interested to see if the policies and processes are as streamlined as they can be regarding patient safety and access.

The policy unit are currently doing work around medicinal cannabis classification in line with the EACD meetings consideration. [redacted] gave a brief overview of the function of Medicines Control. Medicines Control is a regulatory unit that regulate the medicines supply chain, which includes controlled drugs. The classification of medicinal cannabis has been quite topical in the last year and whatever final recommendations are made by the Committee will affect Medicines Control as they administer licences, approvals, permissions etc.

[redacted] advised that currently, if a practitioner wishes to prescribe a cannabinoid or products that contain cannabinoids, they have to make an application to the Minister. Currently there are no products containing only CBD that are approved medicines both domestically and internationally. There are however, a number of non-pharmaceutical products available. It was noted that there was a difference of opinion between ESR and MoH regarding whether or not CBD should be considered a controlled drug or not. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia have recently down-scheduled CBD to a prescription only medicine with less than two percent of other cannabinoids as most CBD extracts contain small amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) due to the difficulty and associated cost to separate the two substances. The Misuse of Drugs Act (MoDA) only requires one molecule of a controlled substance to be present in a preparation for it to be captured as a controlled drug.

There is an entry in the Medicines Regulations for CBD as a prescription medicine, however, if it is also considered a controlled drug, then MoDA acts as the dominant piece of legislation.

The technical paper looked at the potential therapeutic effects of CBD in comparison to the abuse potential. The Committee had been asked to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence to make a recommendation for de-scheduling CBD from being captured under MoDA so that it is classified as a prescription medicine only. The Committee was also asked to consider an amendment allowing CBD preparations to contatin THC and other cannabinoids found in cannabis up to a certain threshold to enable the de-scheduling of CBD to take effect. The Committee considered the options for streamlining medical access to CBD as a controlled drug.

[redacted] advised that there were some controlled drugs that had been exempted from the ministerial approval requirements process as they had been specifically named as exempt as medicines under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations. Blanket or general approvals, permissible under Regulation 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, have also been issued to supply prescribe and administer certain controlled substances . There are multiple avenues that could be considered with regard to what mechanisms are available to streamline the process to access CBD based medicines, however, the main driver for the reclassification of CBD is the TGA decision because they have set a new approach to cannabinoid based medicines.

[redacted] spoke to the notes submitted by [redacted] which covered a few issues with the current legislation. [redacted] also advised that although CBD does have the same molecular formula, ESR do not consider CBD as an isomer of THC within the specific chemical designation under MoDA as CBD is significantly different in structure from THC and is not explicitly named under the legislation. ESR also do a lot of testing for hemp growers who have expressed interest in information regarding CBD content of hemp plants and hemp fibre for therapeutic use. Another point of consideration is that more clarification around what is considered the definition of medicinal cannabis is needed.

Research in this area can be difficult due to the bureaucratic layers to obtain permission. Moving CBD out of MoDA would remove those controls but would still need to address the THC component of the argument as THC is specifically named as a controlled drug under MoDA. More research is required regarding the potential associated risks, however, the risk of CBD causing psychoactive harm is very low as CBD on its own does not produce psychoactive effects. It was also noted that approved prescription medicines have to meet quite stringent requirements regarding controls around dosage, concentration and stability among other testing criteria.

 

Currently, under section 29 of the Medicines Act 1981, there is an exemption for medical practitioners to prescribe unapproved medicines. Non-pharmaceutical forms do not need to meet the same requirements as approved prescription medicines.

MoH considers that CBD, even in the absence of THC, is a controlled drug under the isomer provisions of MoDA and it has administered the Medicines and Misuse of Drugs Acts in accordance with this view. If CBD is de-scheduled from MoDA to be a prescription medicine only, prescriptions will still be required to be in possession of CBD. There was a discussion around what the potential implications would be for de-scheduling CBD regarding over prescribing and abuse. Though CBD can be converted to THC, abuse and conversion of CBD to THC is considered unlikely as CBD based medicines would most likely cost much more than buying cannabis off the street as well as having to go through the process of gaining a prescription to access the CBD medicine. Currently, individuals can carry on their person up to a month’s supply of controlled drugs into NZ with appropriate overseas prescriptions and proof that it was lawfully supplied overseas for the purpose of treating a medical condition..

To address the issue around THC content in CBD medicines, it was suggested that a THC content threshold be set, similar to the allowable threshold of THC in hemp. It was discussed if the limit should be two percent, in line with Australia, or 0.35 percent in line with the threshold for THC in hemp.

The Committee queried whether there was enough evidence presented to make a recommendation for an allowable THC threshold in CBD preparations. They were particularly interested in the processes that led to the 0.35 percent threshold of THC allowed in hemp in NZ and the two percent threshold of other cannabinoids allowed in CBD medicines in Australia. The question was also raised of what the THC content of cannabis generally is.

Outcome: The Committee deferred the decision to the next meeting as more information is needed regarding the process that lead to the 0.35 percent of THC content threshold being allowed in hemp and the two percent threshold of other cannabinoids allowed in CBD medicines in Australia. Research around the effects of consumption of two percent of additional cannabinoids in a CBD product also needs to be looked at by the Secretariat and brought to the Committee.

Action: Secretariat to find out the process that lead to the 0.35 percent threshold of THC content allowed in hemp and report back to the Committee.

Action: Secretariat to find out what the process was for the TGA reaching the two percent threshold of other cannabinoids allowed in CBD medicines.

Action: Secretariat to find out more information around concentration levels of THC in the average cannabis that is circulating in the NZ market.

Action: Secretariat to find out more information regarding effects of consumption of products containing different concentrations of THC.

Action: Secretariat to add CBD to the next agenda.

[redacted] and [redacted] left the meeting at 12.04pm

 

[4]   UN Declaration Righs Indigenous Peoples DRIPS_en.pdf
[5]   OIA 2015150639-0001 Alex Renton Peter Dunne 2407.pdf

 

[6]   Cannabinoids and Glaucoma BJO 08800708.pdf

 

 

 

 

[7]   Bove – Use of Marijuana for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis.pdf
[8]   “Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents”

Guillermo Velasco, Cristina Sánchez & Manuel Guzmán; Nature Reviews Cancer 12, 436-444 (June 2012) | doi:10.1038/nrc3247UN Universal Human Rights 1939.pdf

[9]   Day-Cancer-Why-We’re-Still-Dying-to-Know-the-Truth-(2000).pdf
[10]          Sativex Datasheet: Potential Therapeutic Drug Interactions
[11]          LD50 cannabis Exhibit_G.pdf
[12]          “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”

Grotenhermen, Franjo (23 Jul 2012). “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 109 (PMC3442177): 495–501. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0495. PMC 3442177. PMID 23008748. Franjo Grotenhermen, Nova-Institut, Goldenbergstrasse 2, 50354 Huerth, Germany. franjo.grotenhermen@nova-institut.de

[13]          Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.pdf
[14]          UN 5th Periodic CCPR-C-NZL-CO-5.pdf
[15]          Jury Biasing Flyer.pdf
[16]          Homosexual law reform bill petittion

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81616306/Thirty-years-on-from-NZs-tumultuous-gay-law-reform-bill

[17]          Magna Carta 1215 AD.pdf
[18]          William-Penn-and-Nullification.pdf
[19]          Waihopai Leason-2013-NZCA-509.pdf
[20]          NZHRC Decline Customary Rights February 2016
[21]          Customary Rights Claim of Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn
[22]          Crownlaw-prosecution-guidelines.pdf
[23]          Synod_Prison_Task_Group_Incarceration_in_NZ 2010.pdfMisuse of Drugs Act 1975.pdf
[24]          Misuse of Drugs Medicinal Cannabis Amendment Bill.pdf
[25]          The Emperor Wears No Clothes – Jack Herer 25.pdf
[26]          Sativex Application Approval Form.doc
[27]          Law Commission Review 2011.pdf
[28]          Inquiry-cannabis-legal-status-DBSCH-SCR-2531-2399.pdf Forty-seventh Parliament (Steve Chadwick, Chairperson) August 2003:
a.     Page 49-50 EACD give a high priority to its reconsideration of the classification of cannabis.
b.     Recommendation 22 Page 57 shows support for clinically tested cannabis products for medicinal purposes
[29]          Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells. Guillermo Velasco, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. 2009.
[30]          Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells. Salazar et al. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2009; DOI: 10.1172/JCI37948.
[31]          THC Shrinks Tumours. Munsen A.E et al. J Nat Cancer Inst, Vol 55, No. 3, Sept 1975.
[32]          Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis & Cannabinoids 2009

 

A 2009 review of nearly 200 scientific trials assessing the therapeutic utility of cannabinoids for the treatment of nineteen clinical indications: Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, dystonia, fibromyalgia, gastrointestinal disorders, gliomas, hepatitis C, HIV, hypertension, incontinence, MRSA, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, sleep apnoea, and Tourette’s syndrome.

 

 

Pharmacologically active chemical compounds Cannabis

 

THC, THC-A, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, CBC and about 80 other chemicals are all in a class of compounds known as cannabinoids, found in abundance in the cannabis plant. Cannabinoids are responsible for many of the effects of cannabis consumption and have important therapeutic benefits.

Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol or (THC) is a psychoactive cannabinoid responsible for many of the effects experienced by the cannabis user.
Mild to moderate pain relief, relaxation, insomnia and appetite stimulation.
THC has been demonstrated to have anti-depressant effects.
The majority of strains range from 12-21% THC with very potent and carefully prepared strains reaching even higher. Average THC potency is about 16-17% in Northern CA.
Recent research that suggests patients with a pre-disposition to schizophrenia and anxiety disorders should avoid high-THC cannabis. Cannabidiol or (CBD) occurs in many strains, at low levels, <1%.   In rare cases, CBD can be the dominant cannabinoid, as high as 15% by weight. Popular CBD-rich strains (>4% CBD) include Sour Tsunami, Harlequin and Cannatonic.

It can provide relief for chronic pain due to muscle spasticity, convulsions and
inflammation. Offering relief for patients with MS, Fibromyalgia and Epilepsy.
Some researchers feel it provides effective relief from anxiety-related disorders.
CBD has also been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth when injected into breast and brain tumors in combination with THC.
Cannabinol or (CBN) is an oxidative degradation product of THC. It may result from improper storage or curing and extensive processing, such as when making concentrates. It is usually formed when THC is exposed to UV light and oxygen over time.

CBN has some psychoactive properties, about 10% of the strength of THC.
CBN is thought by researchers to enhance the dizziness and disorientation users of cannabis may experience.
It may cause feelings of grogginess and has been shown to reduce heart rate.
Cannabichromene or (CBC) is a rare, non-psychoactive cannabinoid, usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.

Research conducted has shown CBC has antidepressant effects, 10x those of CBD.
CBC has also been shown to improve the pain-relieving effects of THC.
Studies have demonstrated that CBC has sedative effects, promoting relaxation.
Cannabigerol or (CBG) is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid. It is commonly found in cannabis. CBG-acid is the precursor to both THC-acid and CBD-acid in the plant usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.

Researchers have demonstrated both pain relieving and inflammation reducing effects.
CBG reduces intraocular pressure, associated with glaucoma.
CBG has been shown to have antibiotic properties and to inhibit platelet aggregation, which slows the rate of blood clotting.

 

CBC has been shown to increase the viability of progenitor (stem) cells in the brains of mammals, and is therefore likely to be a form of brain growth stimulant.

 

Terpenes are a diverse range of hydrocarbons that make up the smell constituents of cannabis. The sense of olfaction was the first sense to evolve in animals and eukaryotic multi-celled organisms, and the olfactory senses are those closest to the brain.

 

 


NZHRC Decline Customary Rights February 2016

 

Case ID: 110054

Good morning Xxxxxs Xxxxxxxn,

Thank you for your emails of 17 & 18 February 2016.

You are complaining that you have been discriminated against on the grounds of ethical belief, religious belief, and political opinion due to being unable to use cannabis sativa, indica and ruderalis for medicinal and therapeutic use. You also contend that the inability to use cannabis sativa, indica and ruderalis contravenes the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, affirmed in section 13 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

In addition, you complain that that the inability to use cannabis sativa, indica and ruderalis also contravenes Article 24(1) of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which sets out Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals.

You set out your linkage to Indigenous peoples as being on your father’s side, emigrants from the UK who arrived in NZ in 1852, and on your mother’s side, her being a Jewish refugee from Austria who arrived in NZ in 1939.

You also ask how you can best establish your Customary right to plant based employment, medicine and freedom of thought and the right to develop your consciousness and personality as a European citizen of NZ.

Your suggested remedy is that the HRC and the ACLC seek an injunction removing cannabis from the Schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

There is no indicator in the information provided by you that the matters you complain about could arguably amount to unlawful discrimination in breach of the Human Rights Act.

The Commission will take no further action in relation to this matter.

Kind regards,

 

Robert Hallowell

Legal Counsel

roberth@hrc.co.nz


Appendix B of Misc. Evidence

Minister Peter Dunne approves one-off use of Cannabidiol product ‘Elixinol’

 

9 June 2015 Beehive Press Release https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/minister-approves-one-use-cannabidiol-product-%E2%80%98elixinol%E2%80%99

Associate Minister of Health Hon Peter Dunne has today approved on compassionate grounds the one-off use of Elixinol, a cannabidiol (CBD) product from the United States to be administered by clinicians treating Wellington patient Alex Renton.

“I have also considered the absence of any other treatment options, the low risk of significant adverse effects, and the conclusion reached by the hospital ethics committee from an individual patient perspective.”

 


Sativex Datasheet: Potential Therapeutic Drug Interactions

 

Sativex Datasheet: Potential Therapeutic Drug Interactions (this a guide and not meant to be exhaustive)
               Concomitant Drug Clinical effect
Amphetamines, cocaine, other sympathomimetic agents Additive hypertension, tachycardia, possibly cardiotoxicity
Atropine, hyoscine (scopolamine), antihistamines, other anti-muscarinics Additive or super-additive tachycardia, hypertension, enhancement of sedation and pain reduction
Amitriptyline, amoxapine, desipramine, other tricyclic antidepressants Additive tachycardia and hypertension. Sedating effects may be enhanced
Anti-depressants (SSRIs): fluoxetine etc THC may increase the effect of SSRIs. Hypomanic reaction reported with smoking cannabis
Alcohol Increase in the positive subjective mood effects of smoked cannabis. Additive drowsiness and CNS depression
Barbiturates Decreased clearance of these agents, presumably via competitive inhibition of metabolism. Additive drowsiness and CNS depression
Benzodiazepines

 

Respiratory depression and depression of the brain function may be increased. The antiepileptic action may be enhanced.
Disulfiram Reversible hypomanic reaction reported with smoking cannabis
Naltrexone THC effects are enhanced by opioid receptor blockade
Neuroleptics THC may antagonize the antipsychotic actions of neuroleptics. It may improve their therapeutic effects in motor disorders
Non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID)

 

Indomethacin, acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), and other NSAIDs antagonise THC effects. Indomethacin significantly reduced subjective “high” and acceleration of heart frequency
Opioids Enhancement of sedation and pain reduction. Cross-tolerance and mutual potentiation. CNS depression & drowsiness
Phenothiazines (anti-psychotics/ anti-emetics) Attenuates the psychotropic effects of THC and increases anti-emetic effects
Theophylline Increased theophylline metabolism reported with smoking cannabis, effect similar to that following smoking tobacco

Sativex® (Datasheet) GW Pharmaceuticals Ltd. UK; 2006 http://www.gwpharma.co.uk/sativex.asp

 

Supreme Court Act 2003

 

 

 

In The Public Interest

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature of plaintiff

 

 

                                                                                                (sign here)

 

 

Full name and address: Xxxxxs Xxxxxr Xxxxxxxn

XX Xexxxnt St
Xoxxonxy
Auckland
Date:

29/12/16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1]
Statement of claim

[2] The plant name Cannabis is from Greek κάνναβις (kánnabis), via Latin cannabis,[1] originally a Scythian or Thracian word,[2] also loaned into Persian as kanab. English hemp (Old English hænep) may be an early loan (predating Grimm’s Law) from the same Scythian source.

[3] Supreme Court Act 2003.pdf

[4] Judicature Amendment Act 1972

[5] Judicature Amendment Act 1908

[6] Error! Reference source not found.

[7] UN Declaration Righs Indigenous Peoples DRIPS_en.pdf

[8] OIA 2015150639-0001 Alex Renton Peter Dunne 2407.pdf

[9] Error! Reference source not found.

[10] Error! Reference source not found.

[11] Error! Reference source not found.

[12] Error! Reference source not found.

[13] Error! Reference source not found.

[14] Error! Reference source not found.

[15] “The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis and Cannabinoids”. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 109 (PMC3442177): 495–501. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0495. PMC 3442177free to read. PMID 23008748. Franjo Grotenhermen, Nova-Institut, Goldenbergstrasse 2, 50354 Huerth, Germany. E-mail: franjo.grotenhermen@nova-institut.de

[16] Error! Reference source not found.

[17] Error! Reference source not found.

[18] Error! Reference source not found.

[19] Petition delivered to parliament in regards the homosexual law reform bill http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81616306/Thirty-years-on-from-NZs-tumultuous-gay-law-reform-bill

[20] Error! Reference source not found.

[21] Error! Reference source not found.

[22] Error! Reference source not found.

[23] Law Commission Review 2011.pdf

[24] Error! Reference source not found.

[25] OIA 20160197 Sue Grey – Economic Cost of Prohibition.pdf



Time to rark up the government, tired of waiting, been long enough now…

To: “supremecourt@justice.govt.nz” <supremecourt@justice.govt.nz>

CC: info@cannabis.org.nz, john.tulloch@parliament.govt.nz, “High Court, Auckland” <AucklandHC@justice.govt.nz>, auckland.dc@justice.govt.nz,rotorua.dc@justice.govt.nz, Parliament NZ <parlinfo@parliament.govt.nz>, Parliament NZ <speakers.office@parliament.govt.nz>, LegaliseWeedNZ <john@legalise.org.nz>, Chris Fowlie <chris@hempstore.co.nz>, Julian Crawford <julian@cannabis.org.nz>, Jarom Keung <jarom.keung@pds.govt.nz>, Ataraiti Whyte <AtaraitiW@hrc.co.nz>, Jenni <jenni@aclc.org.nz>, Supreme Court NZ <officeofthechiefjustice@justice.govt.nz>, hamilton.dc@justice.govt.nz, Alica Burrow <alicia.burrow@nzme.co.nz>, Helen Broome <helen@aclc.org.nz>, cynthia.darlington@otago.ac.nz, ESR.ExternalEnquiries@esr.cri.nz, keith.bedford@esr.cri.nz,helen.moriarty@otago.ac.nz, lynette.k@carenz.co.nz, askmedsafe@moh.govt.nz, jamie.bamford@customs.govt.nz, info@health.govt.nz, p.dunne@ministers.govt.nz, Damien O’Connor <damienoconnor@xtra.co.nz>, chai_chuah@moh.govt.nz, j.coleman@ministers.govt.nz, c.finlayson@parliament.govt.nz,Amy.Adams@parliament.govt.nz, Jacinda Ardern <Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz>, KanwaljitSingh.Bakshi@parliament.govt.nz, Darroch.Ball@parliament.govt.nz,Todd.Barclay@parliament.govt.nz, Maggie.Barry@parliament.govt.nz, Andrew.Bayly@parliament.govt.nz, David.Bennett@parliament.govt.nz,Paula.Bennett@parliament.govt.nz, Mahesh.Bindra@parliament.govt.nz, Christopher.Bishop@parliament.govt.nz, Ria.Bond@parliament.govt.nz, Chester Borrows <Chester.Borrows@parliament.govt.nz>, Simon.Bridges@parliament.govt.nz, Steffan.Browning@parliament.govt.nz, Gerry.Brownlee@parliament.govt.nz,David.Carter@parliament.govt.nz, David.Clark@parliament.govt.nz, david.clendon@parliament.govt.nz, Jonathan.Coleman@parliament.govt.nz,Judith.Collins@parliament.govt.nz, Clayton.Cosgrove@parliament.govt.nz, david.cunliffe@parliament.govt.nz, Clare.Curran@parliament.govt.nz,Marama.Davidson@parliament.govt.nz, Kelvin.Davis@parliament.govt.nz, Jacqui.Dean@parliament.govt.nz, Catherine.Delahunty@parliament.govt.nz,matthew.doocey@parliament.govt.nz, Sarah.Dowie@parliament.govt.nz, Peter.Dunne@parliament.govt.nz, Ruth.Dyson@parliament.govt.nz,bill.english@parliament.govt.nz, kris.faafoi@parliament.govt.nz, Christopher.Finlayson@parliament.govt.nz, teururoa.flavell@parliament.govt.nz,Craig.Foss@parliament.govt.nz, Paul.Foster-Bell@parliament.govt.nz, Marama.Fox@parliament.govt.nz, JulieAnne.Genter@parliament.govt.nz,Phil.Goff@parliament.govt.nz, Paul.Goldsmith@parliament.govt.nz, Jo Goodhew <Jo.Goodhew@parliament.govt.nz>, Kennedy Graham <Kennedy.Graham@parliament.govt.nz>, Tim.Groser@parliament.govt.nz, Nathan.Guy@parliament.govt.nz, Kevin.Hague@parliament.govt.nz, Joanne.Hayes@parliament.govt.nz,Peeni.Henare@parliament.govt.nz, Chris.Hipkins@parliament.govt.nz, Brett.Hudson@parliament.govt.nz, gareth.hughes@parliament.govt.nz,Steven.Joyce@parliament.govt.nz, Nikki.Kaye@parliament.govt.nz, John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>, Annette King <Annette.King@parliament.govt.nz>,Nuk.Korako@parliament.govt.nz, Barbara.Kuriger@parliament.govt.nz, Melissa.Lee@parliament.govt.nz, Iain Lees-Galloway <Iain.Lees-Galloway@parliament.govt.nz>, Andrew Little <Andrew.Little@parliament.govt.nz>, Jan.Logie@parliament.govt.nz, PesetaSam.Lotu-Iiga@parliament.govt.nz, Tim.Macindoe@parliament.govt.nz,Nanaia.Mahuta@parliament.govt.nz, trevor.mallard@parliament.govt.nz, Ron.Mark@parliament.govt.nz, Tracey.Martin@parliament.govt.nz,Mojo.Mathers@parliament.govt.nz, Todd.McClay@parliament.govt.nz, Murray.McCully@parliament.govt.nz, Ian.Mckelvie@parliament.govt.nz,Clayton.Mitchell@parliament.govt.nz, Mark.Mitchell@parliament.govt.nz, Sue Moroney <Sue.Moroney@parliament.govt.nz>, Todd.Muller@parliament.govt.nz,Stuart.Nash@parliament.govt.nz, Jonathan.Naylor@parliament.govt.nz, Alfred Ngaro <Alfred.Ngaro@parliament.govt.nz>, Damien.O’Connor@parliament.govt.nz,simon.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz, Denis.O’Rourke@parliament.govt.nz, Pita.Paraone@parliament.govt.nz, Hekia.Parata@parliament.govt.nz,David.Parker@parliament.govt.nz, Parmjeet.Parmar@parliament.govt.nz, Winston.Peters@parliament.govt.nz, Richard.Prosser@parliament.govt.nz,Shane.Reti@parliament.govt.nz, Grant.Robertson@parliament.govt.nz, Denise.Roche@parliament.govt.nz, Jami-Lee.Ross@parliament.govt.nz, Adrian Rurawhe <Adrian.Rurawhe@parliament.govt.nz>, Eugenie.Sage@parliament.govt.nz, Jenny.Salesa@parliament.govt.nz, Alastair.Scott@parliament.govt.nz,Carmel.Sepuloni@parliament.govt.nz, David.Seymour@parliament.govt.nz, James.Shaw@parliament.govt.nz, david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz,Scott.Simpson@parliament.govt.nz, Su’aWilliam.Sio@parliament.govt.nz, Nick.Smith@parliament.govt.nz, Stuart.Smith@parliament.govt.nz,Barbara.Stewart@parliament.govt.nz, Fletcher.Tabuteau@parliament.govt.nz, Rino.Tirikatene@parliament.govt.nz, lindsay.tisch@parliament.govt.nz,Anne.Tolley@parliament.govt.nz, Metiria Turei <metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz>, Philip.Twyford@parliament.govt.nz, Louise.Upston@parliament.govt.nz,Nicky.Wagner@parliament.govt.nz, Louisa.Wall@parliament.govt.nz, Meka.Whaitiri@parliament.govt.nz, poto.williams@parliament.govt.nz,Maurice.Williamson@parliament.govt.nz, Michael.Woodhouse@parliament.govt.nz, Megan Woods <Megan.Woods@parliament.govt.nz>, Jian.Yang@parliament.govt.nz,Jonathan.Young@parliament.govt.nz

BCC: Nick Wright, Jeremy Bioletti, Pure Analytics.net, John Wilson, Jan, Bomber, Mitch Busdriver Native, Seala, Geeksunited, Andy Tonegreen, Rust In Space, Ben Brixton, Ben The@Symbol, SWF, BlKMN, Emmeline, Jerome ‘Trumpet’, Kara on gat, Kat Styling, Kiri Anahera, ‘Monza’, Nick Supergroove, Paaka, Penny, Richard Republic, Seala, AtkinsonAAA, Kp26, Alicia Burrow, Fiona Connor

 

To The Supreme Court of New Zealand I primarily direct this email in the To: field.

 

To those in the CC: field should take note of my application and duly consider it, especially the Hamilton and Auckland district courts, the EACD, and the minister of Health.

 

A substantial portion of the recipients are hidden in the BCC: field of this email to maintain their privacy.

 

Notice is given. An email shall be sent after this revealing the hidden name CRI and date of birth numbers.


An Urgent Interlocutory Application at The Supreme Court

I, Txxxxxs Bxxxxx Axxxxxxx, of Pxxxxxxx, Auckland, 39 years of age (xx/xx/1977) hereby wish to make this formal application for an emergency interlocutory with a crown representative and a member of the EACD before 1 September 2016, the date of another person’s trial, also in relation to, but not limited to the following past and future court actions:

  1. an upcoming proceeding in the Hamilton district court (Crown v TXXXL CRI-2015-XX-XXX519)  set down for Thursday 1 September 2016
  2. my own personal application for Habeas Corpus to overturn my conviction and sentence, which were dismissed at the High Court on 15 December 2015 (CRI-2014-XX-XXX950 and CRI-2015-004-008549)
  3. A class action lawsuit I’m preparing against the government on behalf of the 400,000 people in New Zealand whom have tried the prohibited cannabis once in their lives

 

I hereby seek an urgent interlocutory order or a direction relating to a matter of procedure;

subject to the Supreme Court Act 2003.

 

The matter of procedure relates to ambiguity in the text of the law, the inheritance of laws from England, the interpretation of the meaning / purpose of a jury, inaccuracies in the text of laws, some constitutional issues, the rights of the indigenous etc:

 

[1] In the context of the Misuse of drugs act, what exactly is a drug?

 

It would seem obvious however I thought it a good place to set the context for the interrogatory please. The answer we’d assume is that a “drug” is considered for the purposes of the misuse of drugs act 1975 to be:

  1. an element or compound that affects the body in a clinically recognised and repeatable manner, but not for example a particular unique genus or specimen of a plant individual or group of plants as is the aberrant case of cannabis sativa, which is not something reproducible in a clinical trial.
  2. Cannabis sativa inclusion in the schedules is unique due to this fact since it is not a drug it is a plant
  3. No other banned or prohibited plants exist; certain noxious weeds can not be sold at garden stores, but it is not prohibited to possess or cultivate them.

 

If this basic definition is true, then the plant genus cannabis needs to be struck out of the act in this case or by amendment, and we suggest the same or intended effect could be discovered by studying the following compounds:

THC – Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, THCA – Tetrahydrocannabinolic Acid, THCV – Tetrahydrocannabivarin, CBD – Cannabidiol, CBN – Cannabinol, CBG – Cannabigerol, CBC – Cannabichromene, Terpenes – diverse group of organic HydroCarbons (C5H8).

 

[2] Do the citizens of New Zealand have the right to freedom of thought or not?

 

[3] Does the state recognise or deny our right to the freedom to develop our own unique human personality, our cultural behaviors, lifestyles, religions, traits and customs, so long as it does not harm ourselves physically or mentally, nor anyone else or nor anyone or other nation states property in any measureable way that’s reasonable?

 

Recently the Mexican supreme court ruled in favour of the right to develop a personality and stuck down the ban on the cannabis plant for contravening this, so I felt this was relevant to my interlocutory application at the Supreme Court.

 

[4] What justification exists or why should New Zealand citizens have a right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers and is this right enshrined in any legislation currently?

 

[5] Does the court agree that one good purpose of a jury is to protect citizens from overzealous governments and courts by forming a safety valve or sorts for aberrant or obsolete laws?

 

Our nation and many others are based on the universal and historic text of the Magna Carta of 1215 AD which establishes this.

 

[6] Should the criminal defence be allowed to instruct juries of their conceptual civic responsibility to deliver justice to their fellow citizens perhaps over and above the duty to law and to the crown?

 

The relevance is that we wish to mount a defence that depends on our ability to educate on history or law and instruct the jury in this case to strike out the relevant laws, Misuse of drugs act in this case, but regardless any obstruction to our natural defence this would seem to counter to the entire reason for having jury trials at all?

 

[7] Is New Zealand subject to relevant UK court precedents sovereign and UK where acquittal was provided to the accused despite considerable evidence of their “thought crimes”?

 

The cases are:

  1. a) The King v William Penn and Mead. 1670 Tower of London, United Kingdom;
  2. b) The Crown v Murnane 2008; Waihopai, New Zealand.

 

[8] Does the jury have the responsibility to deliver moral justice to the accused by acquittal from law but not guilt?

 

[9] Does the jury have the option to find any defendant not guilty even if doing so may require accepting the evidence of the crime as factually committed by the accused and yet also simultaneously determine the law itself to be invalid, irrelevant, obsolete, or not in the public interest in this particular case?

 

For example, the accused made a confession to guilt, ed his crime of thinking about it, could

if it is in direct contravention of the fact the accused was in wording of the thought crime law? (Which is the job of the police is it not?)

 

[10] Is it sensible or responsible for crown prosecution to proceed with CRI-2015-019-005519 if the defendant is indicating support from myself to mount a defence of a claim of right under the Crimes Act 1961 or should parliament intervene to clarify its position on the matter?

 

Considering the mountain of evidence against my friend (CRI-2015), and guilty admission in statements to police, an entire jury trial seems an expesive waste of tax payers money.

 

The fact that an accused person acted without “claim of right” is an element of certain offences with must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It enables a defendant to advance at their trial that they genuinely believe that what they were doing was lawful, regardless of the reasonableness of that belief.

 

In summing up the case to jurors, Judge Stephen Harrop said if the Waihopai Three* believed they were acting lawfully, even if they were mistaken in that belief, they must be acquitted. The right of defence was that they acted urgently to save another life.

 

[11] Should parliament be instructed by the supreme court to act positively and decisively on the advice of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in it’s 4th and 5th periodic reports?

 

These are about right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence relating to possession with intent to supply. The UNHRC says that the burden of proof must fall with the prosecution, not with to the defence to prove innocence, so can we please have a direction from the supreme court on the matter?

 

[12] Do we have no other option but to forever incarcerate recidivist cannabis growers, dealers and users who refuse to cease growing, selling, and using the plant?

 

Most recidivist criminals receive extremely long preventative detention sentences for good reason.

 

Along with the United Kingdom and Israel, New Zealand is alone in not having a written, codified constitution, but at any rate laws are actually an extremely weak guarantee of outcome. We outlaw murder, theft, they still happen. This is not to say those behaviors are not bad; and it is not to say we don’t want to have any rules or laws; but that there are better guarantees of outcomes should we choose to look at the evidence.

 

The evidence shows that ethics, morality, and a humanity are a better guarantee of desirable outcomes for a country than strict laws to enshrine a victimless crime law initially designed to target political opponents of Richard Nixon.

[13] Should the jury and judiciary consider complex variables such as compassion, ethics, morality, and humanity or rather be instructed to instead behave more reliably like a computer, emotionless, robotic, but yet 100% fair and even entities?

 

Possibly a combination of the two is my guess so I seek clarification.

 

I would like the double positive scenario (both fair and humane) affirmed by a supreme court judge, to ensure the possibility of a fair trial for my friend and myself in future. The negative-positive combination (not human but only fair) appears to be the de facto method in NZ, hence the interlocution here.

 

[14] Should the judiciary and juries be instructed to overturn laws based on humanity?

 

It is not outside the boundaries of imagination to say that sometimes a humane approach is the right approach; thus the law in error.

 

And we should be allowed to consider when they are appropriate.

And when humanity can in fact provide greater enforcement for individual human rights than the actual laws – the laws and policies themselves are left forlorn and obsolete.

 

Law is no substitute for consciousness.

 

The legality of a thing is no guarantee of the morality of it.

 

Yours sincerely, Tom.

 

PS Thank you and thanks in advance for your eagerly awaited reply! Some further information about the drugs found in the plant cannabis sativa are in my appendix. As you can see I have actually purposefully held back on the questions for my interlocution, as their is a lot more material I have not covered in Appendix B.  

 

Director

TC0rp

____________________________________

____________________________________

Bands: tomachi.tv | triptonites.com

 

Appendix A – Chemical Compounds

Useful Information Relating To The Plant Genus Cannabis

 

THC, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, CBC and about 80 other chemicals are all in a class of compounds known as cannabinoids, found in abundance in the cannabis plant.  Cannabinoids are responsible for many of the effects of cannabis consumption and have important therapeutic benefits.

Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol or (THC) is a psychoactive cannabinoid responsible for many of the effects experienced by the cannabis user.

Mild to moderate pain relief, relaxation, insomnia and appetite stimulation.
THC has been demonstrated to have anti-depressant effects.
The majority of strains range from 12-21% THC with very potent and carefully prepared strains reaching even higher.
Average THC potency is about 16-17% in Northern CA.
Recent research that suggests patients with a pre-disposition to schizophrenia and anxiety disorders should avoid high-THC cannabis.
Cannabidiol or (CBD) occurs in many strains, at low levels, <1%.  In rare cases, CBD can be the dominant cannabinoid, as high as 15% by weight. Popular CBD-rich strains (>4% CBD) include Sour Tsunami, Harlequin and Cannatonic.

It can provide relief for chronic pain due to muscle spasticity, convulsions and
inflammation.  Offering relief for patients with MS, Fibromyalgia and Epilepsy.
Some researchers feel it provides effective relief from anxiety-related disorders.
CBD has also been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth when injected into breast and brain tumors in combination with THC.
Cannabinol or (CBN) is an oxidative degradation product of THC. It may result from improper storage or curing and extensive processing, such as when making concentrates.  It is usually formed when THC is exposed to UV light and oxygen over time.

CBN has some psychoactive properties, about 10% of the strength of THC.
CBN is thought by researchers to enhance the dizziness and disorientation users of cannabis may experience.
It may cause feelings of grogginess and has been shown to reduce heart rate.
Cannabichromene or (CBC) is a rare, non-psychoactive cannabinoid, usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.

Research conducted has shown CBC has antidepressant effects, 10x those of CBD.
CBC has also been shown to improve the pain-relieving effects of THC.
Studies have demonstrated that CBC has sedative effects, promoting relaxation.
Cannabigerol or (CBG) is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid.  It is commonly found in cannabis. CBG-acid is the precursor to both THC-acid and CBD-acid in the plant usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.

Researchers have demonstrated both pain relieving and inflammation reducing effects.
CBG reduces intraocular pressure, associated with glaucoma.
CBG has been shown to have antibiotic properties and to inhibit platelet aggregation, which slows the rate of blood clotting.

 

CBC has been shown to increase the viability of progenitor (stem) cells in the brains of mammals, and is therefore likely to be a form of brain growth stimulant.

 

Appendix B Open Letter to the EACD

 

[Skip to Open Letter To The EACD]

Pouring through the law books trying to find out why and how MODA 1975 got passed, and discovered we can blame Nixon. Ironically, like the TPPA, the US based changes pushed by Nixon were never actually implemented by the USA but were implemented by our 37th Parliament without any public consultation or approval.

Nixon shows he hates jews and pot... and psychiatrists?!

Nixon shows he hates jews and pot… and psychiatrists?!

Supposed to be in control of the schedules of the Misuse of drugs act, but appear to be failing in their duties:

I hereby request to them to remove the cannabis plant and natural extracts and concentrates from the schedules, perhaps with a 1 or 2 year delay on the execution so give time to draft other regulations.

As their website says, the drug classification process is based on risk of harm to individuals or society, therefore The EACD is required to advise the Minister of Health on a range of specific criteria for each drug.

  • the likelihood or evidence of drug abuse, including such matters as the prevalence of the drug, levels of consumption, drug seizure trends, and the potential appeal to vulnerable populations
  • the specific effects of the drug, including pharmacological, psychoactive, and toxicological effects
  • the risks, if any, to public health
  • the therapeutic value of the drug, if any
  • the potential for use of the drug to cause death
  • the ability of the drug to create physical or psychological dependence
  • the international classification and experience of the drug in other jurisdictions
  • any other matters that the Minister considers relevant.

More information on the criteria for classifying drugs, the role of the EACD and the Minister of Health, and the classification process is contained in sections 3A to 5AA of the Act. Go to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 on the New Zealand Legislation website to learn more.

So far this body has only appears to have commented on the following drugs / compounds:

Existing EACD advice to the Minister of Health

So far the body has produced reports about the following drugs of abuse:

Why is it I don’t see cannabis or extracts anywhere in this list? Well perhaps I shall give them all a ring and double check they have recommended cannabis to be removed from the schedules: at least so we can do scientific studies on it and to remove the contradiction!

Vickie appears a bit flaky (4:50 in) I think she should grow some balls and stand up us oppressed tokers by saying how sweet the mary-jane is:

She is good but I’d correct her on the “gateway drug” thing. The Prohibition is the gateway, not cannabis. If you can’t buy crack at your local bar or pharmacist, then you won’t be able to either at your cannabis dispensary.

So here is my open letter to them…

Open Letter To The EACD

Dear [EACD members name],

my name is Tom Atkinson aka Tomachi. I’m an international musician and computer artist.

I’m writing to you urgently on a matter of life and death.

Mine. But also others.

I was almost killed while spending 4 nights in Mount Eden Remand Prison over the New Years public holiday, all thanks to what I can only assume is your apparent status-quo stance on the violence-promoting prohibition of cannabis. The charges were later dropped.

I also want to apply for approval to study and begin building high powered better-than-graphene hemp batteries, and the effects of it on the mind using an OpenBCI brain scanner, but I can’t with the current appearance of cannabis in the schedules of the misuse of drugs, thanks to your lack of action in a way. I request that you remove it entirely from the schedules, thereby forcing further regulation, and showing your personal strength and the power of your science committee.

Our bill of rights was originally designed as supreme legislation back in the 1980’s. But due to the perceived threat of “judicial activism”, it was passed into law in 1990 just as a regular statute. The UN has criticised our lack of constitutional human rights twice, in the fourth and fifth periodic world report on human rights! The difference, as I understand it, meant that judges in the High Court could not decide on their own volition – called judicial activism – to override any strange obsolete law based on it’s incompatibility with the bill of human rights for example. You know such petty issues such as not to be subjected to undue search and seizure, to have some kind of privacy in your own home so long as you harm no one, not to be tortured for no good reason, and to be able to practise your religion unhindered. Oh and to be provided with justice. Those types of things**.

I was tortured for a crime that involves nobody else and a dried plant.

I was tortured purely based on my religion and thoughts: Cantheism.

I wasn’t even home when the police visited, smelt my neighbour smoking cannabis, then proceeded to kick down every door in the house of 6 people living in it doing massive damage that I am still to this day repairing, all to find 1 gram of cannabis in my bedroom? Another 2 nights in MERC on charges that were later dropped during an open court plea bargain, that only would have happened because I plead Not Guilty and asked for a full jury trial.

It’s actually becoming clear to me, that there is some pretty gross abuses of human rights perpetrated by the police around this subject. Two high end studies* I found showed systemic abuse of Maori around the issue of cannabis and it’s lax interpretation by the police. This forms part of a high court injunction I am preparing to serve against you and your committee presently to attempt to force an action.

The NIH just published a study*** showing 45% reduction in bladder cancer from the people who only consumed cannabis and not tobacco. If you can’t see this obvious promise staring you in the face, then you are failing in your duty.

Shortly I intend to apply for an injunction that forces your body – the EACD – to either a) promise to provide scientific recommendations not just on cannabis sativa, but on all medicinal natural extracts including water or b) remove cannabis sativa from the schedules due to it’s medicinal qualities and it’s natural whole-plant nature.

I also plan to, based on your response to this email and phone campaign, to potentially bring a private prosecution against you if I feel you are not cognisant of aforementioned points, for failure to perform your statutory duty. Sorry. It is your job to be cognisant, as you are the expert committee!

Perhaps you’ll need to put out three studies on the pure forms of:

  • THC for cancer prevention
  • CBD for severe epilepsy
  • CBC for brain growth stimulant

If you think about it, The Health Act 1956 binds the crown to do good, or as they say in that funky legal speak “the Ministry shall have the function of improving, promoting, and protecting public health.”

Kawa Kawa (Macropiper excelsum) is an indigenous whole plant based herb. The Maori shamans were banned I assume from using it in the Tohunga Suppression Act 1908, an act that was designed to screw over a man who goes by the name Rua Kenana. They never used it against him, only one brother got hit by that oppression in the end, but it had a chilling effect, and was repealed in the 1950’s or thereabouts, through an amendment.

I mention Kawakawa because it’s a whole plant medicine.

You can’t ban Oranges just because they contain vitamin C, and you haven’t yet put out an advisory on vitamin C yet. You never will, the industry seems to hate vitamin C. It’s a natural medicine so it’s difficult for us to figure out. The Swiss seem to have a good medical system that can do it.

When our 37th parliament passed the Misuse of Drugs Act it was done with no public consultation and very little debate in the house. It’s bit like the TPPA is currently being done… with John Key instead of Nixon at the helm this time acting like a foolish puppy dog for America; The evil man called Nixon at the helms after the assassination of Kennedy.

In a secretly taped recording of Nixon he can be heard saying the following on May 26, 1971 at 10:03am:

Nixon shows he hates jews and pot... and psychiatrists?!

Nixon shows he hates jews and pot… and psychiatrists?!

“Now this is one thing I want. I want a goddam strong statement on marijuana – can I get that out of this sonnofabitching domestic council?

“I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them. I see another thing in the news about it.

“You know it’s a funny thing, every one of the bastards out there for legalising marjiuana are jewish. what the christ is the matter with the jews bob? what is the matter with them? I spose it’s because most of them are psychiatrists you know there’s so many because all the psychiatrists are jewish . By god we are gonna hit the marijuana thing.  and i want to hit it right square in the puss.  want to hit it [blah blah insane ramblings].”

Our cannabis law is based on hatred for Jews.

By the way I am one quarter Austrian Jew.

And you guys are fairly much directly responsible for that, after our pathetic politicians down in Wellington. I feel John is laughing at punishing us for the poor voter turn out. I voted always by the way.

How come you don’t have a recommendation for the three Cannabis extracts?

I put it to you, that you have failed in your statutory duty and will try to find any way that I can bring a private prosecution against you and your organisation if it’s at all possible, and believe me I’ve been looking pretty hard lately.

Tomachi.

Yours truly, a truly frustrated and tired of waiting person.

PS Also if you see Vicki remind her on this point about the “gateway drug” myth she botched in the interview above. The Prohibition is the gateway, not cannabis. I can somehow tell you know this but you didn’t show this in the interview. If you can’t buy crack cocaine at your local bar or pharmacist, then you certainly won’t be able to buy it at your cannabis dispensary either – it would be stupid of them to stock anything illegal if they had a house full the brim with heavily regulated weed!

PSS Prohibition causes violence and crime. Prohibition is not the ultimate form of regulation, it is actually the abdication of responsibility. Regulation will stop the gangs and prevent people from getting hooked on harder drugs like meth, and YOU should be ashamed of yourselves for not pushing much much harder for a taxed and regulated market for this wonderful herb simply to stop meth and gangs. You have caused un-knowable violence and pain for many people since 2000 AD. Do the right thing. NOW! Hurry! Or else you mite have an accident – karma is a pain.

* the two studies are shown below
** the types of rights I’m referring are shown below
*** NIH Study on cannabis use and bladder cancer 11 years 84,000 men longitudinal study shows 45% reduction with a 95% confidence interval! These results are off the chart obvious that you have missed something crucial in your science. Grab some ganja today because it’s obviously going to save your life, and hurry to quickly and strongly remove it from MODA1975.

  1. A Fair Go For All? Addressing Structural Discrimination in Public Services. July 2012.
    A Fair Go For All? Addressing Structural Discrimination in Public Services. July 2012.

    and also another good excerpt from this report: A Fair Go For All? Addressing Structural Discrimination in Public Services. July 2012.

    CJS 2011 report

    CJS 2011 report

  2. Over-representation of Māori in the criminal justice system: An exploratory report (September 2007) by the Policy, Strategy and Research Group – Department of Corrections.

    Over-representation of Māori in the criminal justice system: An exploratory report (September 2007) by the Policy, Strategy and Research Group - Department of Corrections.

    Over-representation of Māori in the criminal justice system: An exploratory report (September 2007) by the Policy, Strategy and Research Group – Department of Corrections.

Justice is not being served

The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 excludes scientific evidence:

Section 205 (Court may suppress evidence and submissions)

  • The crown is likely to suppress general non-relevant evidence provided during cannabis main defence and appeal on the basis that it’s irrelevant to the case at hand and only supplied to bias the court against the cannabis prohibition law itself or is intended to prejudice a jury to acquit regardless of the facts of the case. A judge is not currently allowed to consider science or question the un-science racist law oddly, unlike most countries. This biasing is known as jury nullification and is sought by the future cannabis accused due to New Zealand’s unique international position of having no constitutionally guaranteed human rights and the resultant inability of district court judges to strike down NZ BORA inconsistent legislation – such as the inclusion of cannabis in the schedules of the Misuse of drugs Act 1975

Section 223 (Right of appeal against determination of first appeal court in regards public interest)

The High Court or the Court of Appeal must not give leave for a second appeal under this subpart unless satisfied that (a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance. I believe that there is a great public interest in the reform of our cannabis laws and that only a jury nullification or member of parliament can do it or a member of the EACD can do it.

  • Part of my evidence shows how the MODA conflicts with the BORA regarding Maori and cannabis
  • Evidence to support public support for the taxation and regulation of cannabis
  • Common sense

5 Abuses of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

I seek an urgent High Court interim injunction appeal due to the life threatening yet unusual and unintended severe negative effects of the prohibition law on my ability to work, think, live, love and die based on my in-ability to access adequate protections of my human rights:

  • Section 21 My privacy was breached at every stage in this saga, such as the right to an expectation against unreasonable search and seizure while out and about but especially in the privacy in ones own home so long as it does not injure another person
  • Section 27 The right to justice. Irrelevant evidence such as general case law, scientific studies and government reports, legislation and the outcomes of cases in other countries are unlikely to have been deemed admissible to show by defence to a judge alone trial, since he or she would be unable to consider my human rights in any form
  • Section 13 My right to practice my own religion (Cantheism), that considers cannabis sativa a holy sacrament
  • Section 9 and also Section 22 Not to be subjected to cruel treatment and Liberty of the person being the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained – I spent 6 nights in Mount Eden Prison over new years eve, finally getting my house keys back on January 6th! The substance police alleged was meth for supply was thought to me to be MDMA but which turned out to be PCP according to the ESR test results.
  • Section 9 and also Section 22 This occurred again on 18 June with NZ’s smallest amount of meth ever found in my locked bedroom when I was not even home during a warrantless search: 0.017 grams again this resulted in 2 nights in Mt Eden remand on meth supply charges that got dropped
  • My right to a trial by a jury of my peers – cannabis possession does not qualify for jury trial, yet this is the only way I can move to have my human rights considered

Near the end of the US Liquor Prohibition juries ceased convicting based on law and decided instead to deliver justice. It is the juries responsibility to deliver justice not uphold the law, established in 1670 Tower of London case of William Penn who was charged with speaking in the street but was not permitted to show evidence in trial (to bias the jury against the bad anti-quaker law) and when the jury found him not guilty the entire jury were sent to prison and fined a years wages.

After 1670 juries would be unable to be punished for their thoughts – this has not happened in New Zealand yet, except perhaps with the Waihopai Three Nullification.

Evidence Supporting a Jury Nullification for any Cannabis Related Offence

Proceeds of Crime Data – Past 10 years – Shows prohibition to produce inconsistent rates of return

Based on the data from my official information act request of 15 June 2013

(45693_Atkinson official information proceeds crime.pdf)

When plotted by city and against time one can see that the proceeds of crime act is not a very consistent method of extracting tax revenue from the illegal drugs market in NZ.

Time corelation shows that this is not a very effective tax collection method

Time correlation shows that this is not a very effective tax collection method

The following table suggests that Forfeiture order amounts could potentially be unfairly implemented across the country, with no proceeds whatsoever over a 10 year period from Napier, New Plymouth, Hamilton, Invercargill; but with extremely high amounts from Whangarei equivalent to $67 per person!

Forfeiture order amounts by city shows nothing for four cities and heaps for Whangarei

Forfeiture order amounts by city shows nothing for four cities and heaps for Whangarei

Source: 45693_Atkinson official information proceeds crime.pdf

Proceeds of crime spreadsheet prepared for one of my many official information act requests. What a waste of my time and tax payers money yeah?

Proceeds of crime spreadsheet prepared for one of my many official information act requests. What a waste of my time and tax payers money yeah?

as signed off by Graeme Astle – bless him and give thanks and praise for Jahs work!

Graeme Astle Signature

Graeme Astle Signature ref 45693


A jury would have been asked to consider the benefits of tax revenue to our economy

Colorado Tax Revenue Chart

Colorado Tax Revenue Chart

Colorado Tax Allocation

Colorado Tax Allocation

A jury would be asked to consider our high rates of incarceration and the downsides of this

The chart below is sourced from corrections own data and shows a ballooning Community Detention block, for XLS data see: http://www.legalise.org.nz/home-detention/

Use of Home Detentions is masking NZ's Drug Problem

Use of Home Detentions is masking NZ’s Drug Problem

NZ prison population is some of the highest in the world NOT INCLUDING home detention, community detention

NZ prison population is some of the highest in the world NOT INCLUDING home detention, community detention

Illustration shows that Marijuana is associated with creativity

Cannabis Promotes Creativity

Cannabis Promotes Creativity

Thanks to this man, the police have actually been quietly decriminalising cannabis for the past 20 years

Greg O'Connor Sept 08 300dpi_0

Greg O’Connor Sept 08

NZPA President Greg O'connor Visits Legal Cannabis Store in Colorado

NZPA President Greg O’connor Visits Legal Cannabis Store in Colorado

Trending down in drug apprehensions

Trending down in drug apprehensions

In 2012 only 8 people were convicted of consuming cannabis according to

Official-Information-Act-Request-201307081002.pdf

Only 8 people were convicted of consuming cannabis in 2012

Only 8 people were convicted of consuming cannabis in 2012

Portugal has managed to cut it’s drug addiction rates in half through public health policies

Portugals president explains what he did to cut drug addiction in half

Portugals president explains what he did to cut drug addiction in half

Pot Friendly Countries

NZ Has a poor attitude compared to nearly every other developed country

NZ Has a poor attitude compared to nearly every other developed country

Cost of administering sentences by sentence type

The cost of administering home detention and prison

The cost of administering home detention and prison

No prosecution for cannabis should proceed because it is no longer in the public interest

58 Entirely Unique Website Domains Carried Stories About Kelly van Gaalen

58 Entirely Unique Website Domains Carried Stories About Kelly van Gaalen

The United Nations said this stuff about our poor human rights: (!)

The UN comments on NZ lack of rights in the Fourth Periodic Report under the convenant on civil and political rights.

The United Nations tells NZ to rationalise cannabis laws

The United Nations tells NZ to rationalise cannabis laws

and again to remind New Zealand again during the fifth periodic report:

UN comments on NZ's poor human rights stance

UN comments on NZ’s poor human rights stance

This is fucked to put it bluntly I’m sorry.

An excerpt from 15 YEARS OF THE NZ BILL OF RIGHTS: TIME TO CELEBRATE, TIME TO REFLECT, TIME TO WORK HARDER? By Petra Butler:

Petra Butler comments about the history of our crippled human rights laws

Petra Butler comments about the history of our crippled human rights laws

Thomas Jefferson said “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”

thomas-jefferson

The results of a very long running US GALLUP poll on whether the use of marijuana should be made legal or not shows a steady increase from 12% right up to 58%

US_gallop-cannabis-legalization-poll

The world’s first ever marijuana conviction shown. 4 years prison for 2 joints. Prisoner number 18,699. Numbers would get to the point where America has more people in prison than Chinese prisons!

Worlds First Cannabis Convict

Worlds First Cannabis Convict

We can thank Nixon for this terribly brutal regime we are still subjected to.

 



350million drug-harm

Sue Grey PDF



Maybe I was stoned and missed it, but a momentus event occurred in April!

You are receiving this newsletter because Re-Legalise NZ decided to “carry” a transmission from Damien O’Connor. This was a decision SecretStoner made and is a one off – for more you would need to subscribe to Damien O’Connor’s news list personally on his website. We respect your privacy and will not share your details with any 3rd party.

Copyright © 2016 Re-Legalise NZ 

 

 

April 2016 newsletter from Damien O’Connor
MP West Coast/Tasman

Facebook
Twitter
Website
Bennett Morgan (left) presents the petition with over 4000 signatures in support of Helen Kelly’s access to medical cannabis. Damien’s Members Bill was placed in the Ballot the day before.

Damien lodges medicinal cannabis approval bill

Damien O’Connor has lodged a Member’s Bill to make it easier for patients like the late Alex Renton to access medicinal cannabis products.

“I supported Alex Renton’s family in their quest to get approval for medicinal cannabis in a hope it could improve his desperate situation.

“The current system is too bureaucratic and it is unclear where the final approval lies.

“My Bill makes the approval process simpler but has appropriate safeguards.

“The key change is the Minister must not prevent the supply and administration of processed cannabis products to a person considered by a registered medical practitioner to be either in the final stages of a terminal illness, or have a permanent condition that causes significant pain or impairment.

“This is a Member’s Bill I hope will progress the issue and, if drawn, will enable Parliament to properly consider the value of access to medicinal cannabis. Change is supported by the majority of New Zealanders,” says Damien O’Connor.

The future of work on the West Coast

Small business and technology

Labour’s Future of Work Commission, chaired by Grant Robertson is looking at a comprehensive plan for ensuring decent work opportunities and secure incomes for New Zealanders in a world that is changing faster than we have ever seen before.

Buller locals know all about rapid change as the region comes to terms with the loss of Solid Energy, Oceana, Bathurst and Holcim, among global changes in industry and the boom and bust cycles of coal and diary.

There has been much talk about diversification and how to revive the economy. The brightest prospects on the horizon are focused on tourism and technology, driven by a variety of smaller ventures, rather than one big industry, such as coal or cement.

A partnership between several Westport organisations such as Buller Reap and the Buller District Council has launched the Epic project, which focuses on technology to stimulate small business. They are hosting a business networking event with Ben Dellaca on 15 April.  Ben grew up in Westport and is now on a mission to bring digital innovation to Buller. The first Epic breakfast with Guy Ryan was very successful and has inspired a number of new initiatives. The Epic hub will also provide other key start-up services such as fibre optic internet and open plan office facilities to encourage and support entrepreneurs.

Co-Starters is a comprehensive learning and support programme that will also soon get underway in Westport. It aims to help people get their business ideas going. It is a 9 week course utilising guest speakers and peer support to develop ventures. Tai Poutini Polytech is also running a small business management course to provide the nuts and bolts skills for small business entrepreneurs.

Automation is predicted to wipe out nearly half the jobs that exist right now within a decade and a half, so Labour’s Future of Work starts with technology because it is driving much of the change.

“We are calling this digital equality”, Grant Robertson said, “It is the modern version of saying that everyone deserves a fair go, except this time it is about getting us all connected and knowing how to make the most of technology”.

This means encouraging small businesses and social entrepreneurs. Not just in our cities but also by supporting development in our regions that is sustainable and high value.

About Labour’s Future of Work Commission 

Labour backs young entrepreneurs

The next Labour Government will encourage innovative and driven young entrepreneurs to create a viable business by providing training, a business mentor and up to $20,000 capital for successful applicants in its Young Entrepreneurs Plan, Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little says.

“The changing nature of work is creating a new generation of smart, innovative young Kiwis who need nurturing and capital to get successful ideas off the ground.

“We know that not everyone thrives in formal education or training and some of our best-known entrepreneurs learnt everything they know on the job.

“In January we announced our first major Future of Work policy – three years free training and education across a person’s lifetime. Today’s announcement is an extension of that, allowing smart, young entrepreneurs aged 18-23 to cash that in and capitalise on a great business idea.

This would be in the form of a one-off start-up grant with the safety net of funded business training, an ongoing business mentor and a business plan approved by an independent panel of experts.

“The grants will be capped at 100 per year for the first three years.

“Today’s young people are growing up in an environment that promotes entrepreneurial thinking in ways older generations did not. Their working careers are more likely to involve generating more of their own income and less stable work. Encouraging their business skills will be crucial.

“There are many barriers to young people accessing finance to back good business ideas. But this plan is about much more than just capital. Putting young Kiwis through business training, providing them with an experienced business mentor and requiring a thorough business plan to be successful for the grant provides a real safety net for their idea.

“This will offer real opportunities to young people who have a good business brain and the drive to make their ideas work so they can not only be a part of the Future of Work, but help determine the future of work.

“New Zealand needs more successful entrepreneurs and this small investment will help create the next generation of them,” says Andrew Little.

Time for a tourism levy

by Damien O’Connor

The West Coast has experienced a strong tourist season and people continue to visit our amazing region. That’s great news for anyone with a business connected in any way to travelers.

But what is concerning is the increasing amount of unwanted, misplaced and sickening human effluent from the top of our region to the bottom.  Almost every roadside stopping point is strewn with obvious signs of people who needed a toilet.

While everyone understands urgent needs, the absence of toilets and clear directions for visitors means our reputation for spectacular, pristine scenery is at risk. We can’t continue to ignore the problem.

The expectation that local councils and ratepayers should stump up with the bylaws, the facilities and the maintenance costs are completely unrealistic, especially on the Coast where we have a small population in a large geographical area in which rates are already proportionately among the highest in the country.

I promoted a conservation levy of $25 paid by every visitor to NZ. It could be included in their airline ticket and the money administered by a fund available to councils and DoC to pay for toilets, signage and infrastructure to protect our environment from degradation. Visitors could be rewarded with a National Park pass book, which would be stamped as a memento of their journey.

A campaign run by a sector in the tourism industry that claimed the costs would discourage tourism, was both stupid and self serving. It’s time for the tourism industry to push for the conservation levy. At the moment visitors pay nothing and many have no idea of the value of their experience. The status quo is not sustainable and tourism should jump on board to change it.

Around the electorate

From Wellington

Latest press releases from Labour HQ

Documents prove Crown land sell-off a fiasco

Posted by Phil Twyford on April 12, 2016
New documents obtained by Labour prove Nick Smith lied when he denied the Government had identified land occupied by substations and cemeteries as Crown land to be sold off for housing, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. More

Tax history should be an open book for leaders

Posted by Andrew Little on April 12, 2016
In revealing his tax history for the past six years today, Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little says transparency is crucial for public confidence in political leaders. More

Full transparency needed from PM and Government

Posted by Andrew Little on April 11, 2016
John Key’s proposal to appoint a ‘tax expert’ to review our foreign trusts doesn’t go far enough and he must instead launch a full independent inquiry into the details coming out of the Panama Papers, says Opposition Leader Andrew Little. More

Govt worried about public scrutiny – cuts down TPP process

Posted by David Clark on April 08, 2016
The Government wants to trim the process for hearing TPP submissions to get the controversial legislation off the agenda for election year in a shocking case of political expediency, Labour’s Trade and Export Growth spokesperson David Clark says. More

O’Connor lodges medicinal cannabis approval bill

Posted by Damien O’Connor on April 07, 2016
Damien O’Connor has lodged a Member’s Bill to make it easier for patients like the late Alex Renton to access medicinal cannabis products. “I supported Alex Renton’s family in their quest to get approval for medicinal cannabis in a hope it could improve his desperate situation” Damien O’Connor said. More

To read more press releases, news and information about the Labour Party, visit www.labour.org.nz

Thanks to everyone who responded to last month’s survey. Here are the results:

Should our police services be centralised?

  • Yes 18.2%
  • Dont know 9.1%
  • No 72.7%

Blackball Mayday Events

FRIDAY night debate at the Blackball Workingmen’s Club – Runanga vs Blackball: That West Coast leadership remains hopeless.

SATURDAY Forum at the Mines Rescue Centre, Runanga.  Last year’s day was robust and thought-provoking, with the various speakers articulating a way forward for the region.  What have they got to say a year later?

SUNDAY Community Day outside the Runanga Miners’ Hall, McGowan St, Runanga.  There will be baking, biking, poetry and solidarity. Come and join us!


Facebook page

 Friday April 29 to Sunday May 1

A weekend of conservation and entertainment at Punakaiki.

Diary & Events

APRIL 19
Wills and Trusts Seminar
12.15 pm The Auditorium, St Thomas’ Anglican Church, 101 High Street Motueka

APRIL 15 to 16
West Coast Ag Fest Cass Square Hokitika.

APRIL 17 to 22
National Farm Forestry Assoc. Conference, Hokitika

APRIL 20
Trio Éclat concert
7.30pm, Chanel Arts Centre, Motueka

APRIL 29
Mayday Blackball-Rununga Debate at the Blackball Working Mens Club.

APRIL 30
Mayday forum at Mines Rescue, Rununga

APRIL 30
Westport Warrior endurance race
North Beach Westport

MAY 1
Rununga May Day fun day, Rununga Miners Hall

APRIL 30 / MAY 1
Return of the Petrel Festival, Punakaiki

MAY 4
Community & Whanau meeting
12 noon, Community House, Motueka

MAY 5
“Mothers & Fathers”: A play by Joe Musaphia
Thursday to Saturday, May 5th and 7th, 7.30pm
Imagine Theatre, Woodlands Ave, Motueka.

MAY 5
Hokitika Mid-Winter Festival

MAY 8
Jennian Homes Mothers Day Fun Run / Walk
9 am at the Solid Energy Centre Westport

Share
Tweet
Forward
Sign up for your Argus

The Argus Tradition

The Grey River Argus was the first newspaper published in Greymouth, appearing in November 1865. The Grey River Argus supported the Labour Movement. For many years the legend New Zealand’s pioneer Labour daily appeared on the masthead. I am carrying on this proud tradition and the West Coast-Tasman Argus will be my way of keeping the electorate up to date. Damien O’Connor
You are receiving this newsletter because Re-Legalise NZ decided to “carry” a transmission from Damien O’Connor. This was a decision SecretStoner made and is a one off – for more you would need to subscribe to Damien O’Connor’s news list personally on his website. We respect your privacy and will not share your details with any 3rd party.

Copyright © 2016 Re-Legalise NZ

 



Shown below are prison population graphs from Corrections NZ showing daily prison muster numbers, taken from pages such as the December 2015 summary. My OIA Request 429890 seeks to obtain very fine-grained database access to the full set of  Corrections anonymised database tables for the past 10 years, including one-way salted hashes of prisoners CRI/CRN numbers to provide protection for privacy respect to the privacy act), including columns or fields for “gang” / religion / tattoos or whatever you have, I will be able to plot on a daily chart the numbers similar to how Corrections has itself done on the website.

To illustrate I have collected a series of graphs taken from the December summary pages…

2008 to 2011:

July-2008-June-2011-PS-muster-graph-big

2010 to 2013:

2011-prison-population

2011 to 2014:

2013-PS_Total_Prison_Population

2013 to 2015:

2014-PS_Total_prison_population_v2

2014 to 2018 (predicted):

2015-Total_Prison_Population_December_2015



By my calculations the NZ justice system consumes 3,248,500 prisoner nights per year! At a cost of $90,936 per prisoner per year and $900 million / year for corrections. And yet 16% are put there for the “crime” of altering their minds. Freedom of Thought Now! The Rastafari should be able to burn incense just like a catholic priest burns his incense. Anything less is a fundamental christian dictatorship using “smell” as evidence when you can’t take a photo of an aroma https://www.legalise.org.nz/synod/

Our Latest OIA Request

Dear Government,

hope you can help – hope I have the right people please;
re: OIA case id 429890 I’m trying to build a better picture of discrimination in criminal sentencing/discharges in NZ.
Some data points I will need to be able to extract are:
  • how many people are in jail each night (include home detention)
  • a way to group victimless crimes (conservation act 1987, benefit fraud, drugs, drink driving etc)
  •  and compare this with how many people walk free also due to the use of discharge without conviction, judicial cancellation of the case (eg prosecution evidence too weak and case is dropped), use of plea bargain (reduction of charge from cannabis supply to cannabis procure for example, due to lack of evidence, due to lack of witness, victim or complainant).
On 23 May I filed an official information act request (OIA case id 429890 re: study of the use of Section 106 discharge without conviction in Justice department, Courts, Sentencing in regards “cultural psychopathy / effective fundamentalist christian dictatorship” by police and judiciary). I’ve since heard back from the Ombudsmen – and now have a Case ID for the request.
If the filtering I’ve just asked for above is too difficult, I’m happy to perform the data cleansing myself – for example with a record of every judgement in past 10 years:
  • Date of judgement
  • Type of judgement: eg sentence, discharge, dismissal etc (the resolution date)
  • CRI / CRN (securely scrambled* if needed)
  • Charge (eg “Cannabis supply” = dismissed, “Cannabis procure” = sentenced
  • Type of sentence: prison / home detention / community detention
  • Length of sentence in nights
  • Amount of fine etc

I assume with 10 years of data, 10,000 prisoners and another 10,000 on EM curfew, the data should use about 200,000 – 1,000,000 rows of database or similar assuming an average conviction rate of 75% and between 1 and 5 charges per judgement.

Discretion Turned Bad
When there is no witness, no victim and no complainant, the justice system (police, courts, corrections) uses it’s discretion unfairly based on culture, race, sex, religion and many other factors that are impossible to see or even control by the people involved themselves due to the untracked subconscious psychological factors (in the minds of the judges and the way they interact with the court, and the minds and speeches the prosecutors, adn other unknown players present) because they are hidden in privacy by the Privacy Act 1993. By my calculations the NZ justice system consumes 3,248,500 prisoner nights per year! At a cost of $90,936 per prisoner per year and $900 million / year for corrections. And yet 16% are put there for the “crime” of altering their minds. Freedom of Thought? The Rastafari should be able to burn incense just like a catholic priest burns his incense. Anything less is a fundamental christian dictatorship using “smell” as evidence when you can’t take a photo of an aroma https://www.legalise.org.nz/synod/
I would like to discover who the following 2 sets of pairs (two people on the day) of people are:
a) the most colluded judge and prosecutor pair and; (highest percent discharge)
b) the most refuted judge and prosecutor pair; (lowest percent discharge)
c) without revealing their identity;
The data you provide will not allow me to personally identify anybody, but it will not preclude the possibility in the future should a Royal Commission of Enquiry or similar request leave from the privacy act to do so.
Privacy Act Compliance via Secure Hash
My OIA seeks to rectify this untenable situation by securely and privately extracting the data we need to fix the system using a secure hash of the:
  • Judges name (day of discharge/charges dismissed
  • Prosecutors name/ID
  • Defence lawyers name/ID (if any)
  • McKenzie Friends name/ID (if any) see: http://newzealandjudges.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/mckenzie-friend-has-lawyers-running.html
  • The Accused name/ID, CRN, CRI, etc
* it is possible to securely scramble and make public private data by the use of a random “salt” added to the data + a mathematically irreversable secure hash function or “digest”, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function

Figures need to also show EM curfews like home detention and community detention as well as prison time.

Thanks so much in advance!
 
Looking forward to seeing the data and helping solve our systemic racism, and our cultural psychopathy toward the rastafari. It appears NZ has become a fundamentalist christian dictatorship: it is time we had freedom of thought (cannabis), as well as freedom of speech.
Some points to consider:
  • 16% in prison for drugs: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11353236
  • Use of home detention is masking the prohibition problem in NZ: https://www.legalise.org.nz/home-detention/
  • 1st place in world for incarceration rates if you count home D
  • The Synod Report  extrapolation shows we consume 3,248,500 prisoner nights per year! https://www.legalise.org.nz/synod/
  • Therefore we must be number 1 in the world for incarceration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
  • Black/Rasta Lives Matter  – We live in a radical christian dictatorship that is currently putting hundreds or maybe thousands of innocent people behind bars (16% of prison population may have no victim, complainant, or witness, and the Rotorua conviction rate is 87%)
  • The discrimination must stop! https://www.facebook.com/events/204027403331644/

Prison Muster Daily Graphs 2008 to 2016



Flames engulf a building following the outbreak of hostilities between the Panamanian Defense Force and U.S. forces during Operation Just Cause.

Opium poppy production in Afghanistan 1994-2014Dear Friends, Family, Future Employers… If you do not vote Legalise you are supporting terrorism.

It is an open secret that ISIL, ISIS, Al Qaueda or القاعدة‎‎  use cash sourced from Heroine crops in Afghanistan, and in 1991 USA killed over 3,000 innocent civilians in Panama city via a single bomb blast to an apartment block over cocaine.

Operation_Just_Cause_Rangers_2d_plt_La_Comandancia_secure_small

The ironically named Operation Just Cause was the exact opposite of justified. It blows my mind to think that whomever came up with that disgusting name for a military operation didn’t consider the irony of the injustice of it.

The United States Invasion of Panama, code-named Operation Just Cause, was the invasion of Panama by the US between mid-December 1989 and late-January 1990. It occurred during the administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the United States to Panama by 1 January 2000. wikipedia.org/US_invasion_of_Panama 

Marines of Company D, 2nd Light Armored Infantry Battalion, stand guard with their LAV-25 light armored vehicles outside a destroyed Panamanian Defense Force building during the first day of Operation Just Cause.

Marines stand guard outside a destroyed Panamanian Defence Force building during the first day of Operation Just Cause.

Target Practice For Desert Storm

Noam Chompsky had points out how the US Attorney-General has blocked the evidence proving the “Target Practice” conspiracy theory (this was practice for Desert Storm, only a few months away) this to say which shows the terrifying control over NYT:

Central American sources continued to give considerable attention to the impact of the invasion on civilians, but they were ignored in the occasional reviews of the matter here. New York Times correspondent Larry Rohter devoted a column to casualty estimates on April 1, citing figures as high as 673 killed, and adding that higher figures, which he attributes only to Ramsey Clark, are “widely rejected” in Panama. He found Panamanian witnesses who described U.S. military actions as restrained, but none with less happy tales. zcomm.org/…chomsky…dd-c05-s11 … The Mexican press reported that two Catholic Bishops estimated deaths at perhaps 3000. Hospitals and nongovernmental human rights groups estimated deaths at over 2000. … Eyewitnesses interviewed in the urban slums report that U.S. helicopters aimed their fire at buildings with only civilian occupants, that a U.S. tank destroyed a public bus killing 26 passengers, that civilian residences were burned to the ground with many apartments destroyed and many killed, that U.S. troops shot at ambulances and killed wounded, some with bayonets, and denied access to the Red Cross. … The Spanish language press in the United States was less celebratory than its colleagues. Vicky Pelaez reports from Panama that “the entire world continues in ignorance about how the thousands of victims of the North american invasion of Panama died and what kinds of weapons were used, because the Attorney-General of the country refuses to permit investigation of the bodies buried in the common graves.” An accompanying photo shows workmen exhuming corpses from a grave containing “almost 200 victims of the invasion.” Quoting a woman who found the body of her murdered father, Pelaez reports that “just like the woman at the cemetery, it is `vox populi’ in Panama that the North americans used completely unknown armaments during the 20 December invasion.”

Panamanian civilians killed according to:

U.S. military:  202
United Nations:  500
CODEHUCA:  2,500–3,000

1 Spanish journalist killed

Flag_of_Jihad.svg

malala

Afghan farmers collect raw opium as they work in a poppy field in Khogyani district of Jalalabad, east of Kabul, Afghanistan, Friday, May 10, 2013. Opium poppy cultivation has been increasing for a third year in a row and is heading for a record high, the U.N. said in a report. Poppy cultivation is also dramatically increasing in areas of the southern Taliban heartland, the report showed, especially in regions where thousands of U.S.-led coalition troops have been withdrawn or are in the process of departing. The report indicates that whatever international efforts have been made to wean local farmers off the crop have failed. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)

Source: Jamie Han 2013 blogs.ft.com/photo-diary/2013/05/opium-farming-in-afghanistan/

 

Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta -£44 billion

According to the Herald:

The Catanian Mafia in turn works closely with the Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta, an international criminal network whose mastery of the cocaine market means it has a turnover of £44 billion, greater than McDonald’s and Deutsche Bank combined.

The investigators’ principal concern is that the weapons may fall into the hands of extremists. “The Egyptian citizen was previously arrested in Italy for belonging to an organisation dedicated to human trafficking in the Med. We’ve been investigating possible connections with terrorist organisations,” a carabinieri source said.

Organised criminals are increasingly open to trading with extremists, complicating the battle against terrorism.

Ballistics experts are aware that petty criminals and drug dealers usually require small pistols they can conceal, while terrorists want assault weapons to inflict maximum damage.

 



henry-viiiIn 1533, King Henry VIII decreed that all landholders set aside one-quarter acre for the cultivation of hemp for every sixty acres of land that they tilled, in order to provide the necessary fibre required by the nation. This was to satisfy the increased demand for rope and sailcloth for King Henry’s VIII new navy.

Queen-Elizabeth-I_Darnley-Portrait_860x440In 1563 Queen Elizabeth I reintroduced the law to expand her navy and she added a £5 fine for any eligible landlord who failed to comply. From then on the demand increased and the hemp industry became a very important industry to the British economy. They had to improve the supply of this strategic raw material when in the 1630s the British sped up their colonisation of the new world.Elizabeth_I_of_England_Hardwick_1592

1. Deitch, Robert (2003) Hemp: American history revisited: the plant with a divided history. page 12. Algora Publishing. Accessed 2010-01-16.
Research and text © Hempshopper Amsterdam.



 

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/00DBHOH_BILL56948_1/drug-and-alcohol-testing-of-community-based-offenders

Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill

This Bill enables the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police to require community-based offenders and bailees, if they are subject to conditions prohibiting the use of drugs and alcohol, to undergo drug and alcohol testing to ensure compliance with these conditions.

(Formerly Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill)

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/00DBHOH_BILL66352_1/misuse-of-drugs-amendment-bill

Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill

(Formerly part of Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill)

Member in charge: Hon Amy Adams
Type of bill: Government
Parliament: 51
Bill no: 219-3L
Third reading: 4/11/15
Royal assent: 6/11/15
Act: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2015 (15/106)